delete_custom_food

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new context: the deletion is irreversible, a Connect+ subscription gates it, and it resolves null. This goes meaningfully beyond what the structured fields convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is garbled and repetitive: 'IRREVERSIBLE' appears twice, and the second sentence ('IRREVERSIBLE. Needs Connect+ IRREVERSIBLE: confirm with the user before calling') reads as broken fragments. The important subscription note is front-loaded, but the redundancy wastes space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an irreversible mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: the subscription gate, the irreversibility, the required user confirmation, and the null return. Only the foodId provenance and alternative-tool routing are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining foodId, but it only surfaces it as a path template without elaborating on format or source (e.g., obtained from get_custom_foods). It identifies the parameter's role but adds little beyond the schema's type declaration.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (DELETE) and resource (customFood/{foodId}), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like delete_food_logs or update_custom_food, but the resource is specific enough to identify the target.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides concrete preconditions: a Connect+ subscription is required, the agent should verify via has_connect_plus, and the user must be asked to confirm before calling. It lacks explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing, but the prerequisite and confirmation protocol are strong context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.