delete_food_logs

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so irreversibility is partly covered; the description still adds real value by spelling out the subscription gating, the batch semantics (any number in one call, regular and quick-add alike), and an explicit user-confirmation requirement that annotations cannot express.

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 critical warning is front-loaded and the endpoint/body shape is compact. It loses a point for repetition: the Connect+ requirement appears twice and irreversibility is asserted twice, which is redundant prose for an otherwise tight definition.

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 a destructive, subscription-gated delete with a two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers everything the agent needs: prerequisites, batch behavior, ID provenance, irreversible consequence, and confirmation protocol.

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 coverage is only 50% and logIds carries no schema description, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that logIds accepts any number of IDs in one call, covers both regular and quick-add entries, and can be sourced from getNutritionDailyFoodLog. The date parameter is already documented in the schema, so nothing is duplicated.

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 and resource ('Deletes log entries from one day'), plus scope ('any number at once') and the underlying endpoint. An agent can distinguish it from sibling deletes like delete_custom_food or delete_weigh_in without opening any schema.

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?

Gives prerequisites (Connect+ subscription, verified via has_connect_plus) and an explicit safeguard ('confirm with the user before calling'), and routes the agent to getNutritionDailyFoodLog for the logIds. It stops short of naming when a different tool would be preferred, but the when-to-use conditions are clear.

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