delete_custom_food

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the action is permanent ('Permanently removes') and discloses a critical constraint: the food must not be actively referenced in a logged meal. This gives an agent a realistic picture of the tool's destructiveness and failure condition, though it doesn't specify the exact result if the constraint is violated.

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 description is compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a short behavioral note, and a clear Args section. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 single-parameter delete tool with no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is deleted, that deletion is permanent, the prerequisite constraint, and how to obtain the required parameter. Since an output schema exists, not detailing return values is acceptable.

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 explain food_id, and it does so excellently. It specifies that food_id is a 32-char hex string and that it comes from get_custom_foods or create_custom_food, providing both format and provenance beyond the bare schema field.

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 description states a specific verb ('delete'), a specific resource ('custom food'), and a clear scope ('user's Garmin nutrition library'). It differentiates from sibling deletion tools like delete_food_log, delete_workout, and delete_course by emphasizing this is a custom food entry in the nutrition library.

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?

The description gives clear context: this is for permanently removing a custom food entry, with a prerequisite that the food must not be actively referenced in a logged meal. It also directs the user to get_custom_foods to find the foodId, which is useful. It does not explicitly name alternative deletion tools for non-custom foods, but the context is clear enough.

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