delete_food_logs

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the Connect+ subscription requirement, the batch capability ('any number in ONE call'), the irreversibility, and the confirm-with-user protocol. The auth prerequisite and confirmation workflow go well beyond what annotations 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?

Front-loads the subscription prerequisite and the irreversible warning, which is good. However, 'IRREVERSIBLE' appears twice and 'Needs Connect+' duplicates the opening requirement, so several clauses repeat information that already landed once.

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, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the key agent needs: prerequisite subscription, ID source, batch capability, irreversibility, and confirmation. It does not describe what the response returns, though with no output schema that is a minor omission for a delete call.

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% (logIds is undocumented in the schema), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that logIds is a batch array and where the IDs come from (entries of getNutritionDailyFoodLog). The date parameter is covered by the schema's YYYY-MM-DD format and by the endpoint path notation.

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+resource (delete food logs) and even disambiguates scope by noting the tool handles both regular and quick-add entries in a batch. This clearly separates it from siblings like delete_custom_food or delete_activity, and the embedded REST endpoint anchors the exact operation.

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 strong prerequisites and sourcing guidance: requires Connect+ (check with has_connect_plus) and logIds come from getNutritionDailyFoodLog. It also mandates user confirmation. What it lacks is any explicit when-not or comparison against a sibling, but for a delete operation with no true alternative this is close to complete.

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