update_custom_food

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

The description discloses real behavior beyond the annotations (full-replace semantics, a verified case where the brand was dropped), but that disclosure directly conflicts with destructiveHint=false: the annotation declares only additive/non-destructive updates while the description states that omitted fields are removed. Per the rubric this is an annotation contradiction.

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 short but redundant: Connect+ is mentioned twice ("Requires a Garmin Connect+ subscription..." and "Needs Connect+.") and FULL REPLACE is stated twice. The repetition means several sentences do not earn their place, though the critical warning is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with a nested 17-field input object, no output schema, and contradictory annotations, the description covers the two most important items (subscription prerequisite and full-replace data loss). It omits return format, error behavior, and what foodId/servingId must reference, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 must carry the load. "The same PUT carrying both ids" clarifies that foodId and servingId are both required, and the FULL REPLACE note explains a critical input semantic (omitted optional nutrients are deleted) that the schema does not state. It still says nothing about the 17 nested input fields, their units, or the servingSize/servingUnit defaults.

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?

The phrase "FULL REPLACE of a custom food's definition" gives a specific verb (replace) and resource (custom food), which distinguishes it from the create_custom_food and delete_custom_food siblings. However, the tool's actual purpose is buried behind a subscription-gating sentence that leads the description, and no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It provides a genuine usage gate ("Requires a Garmin Connect+ subscription (check with has_connect_plus)") and a caution about the destructive replace, which is useful operational context. But it never states when an agent should reach for this tool versus create_custom_food or delete_custom_food, so direction on alternatives is absent.

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