delete_food_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the duty of disclosing behavior. It explicitly says the removal is permanent and applies to both entry types, which covers irreversibility and scope. It does not mention permissions, ownership, or effects on related meal data, but the destructive nature is clearly stated.

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-loaded with purpose and permanence, then entry type scope, then a retrieval pointer, then a compact Args block. Every sentence adds value and no filler is present.

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 two-parameter delete operation with no annotations, the description contains the workflow, parameter formats, scope, and destructiveness. Since an output schema exists, omitting return-value details 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 provides only type/name/title, so description adds most of the meaning: log_id is a 32-char hex UUID, meal_date is YYYY-MM-DD, and both are tied to get_nutrition_daily_food_log. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 action ('Delete a food log entry') and the exact resource ('logged food item from the nutrition log'), then sharpens scope by explicitly covering QUICK_ADD and REGULAR_LOG entry types. This clearly distinguishes it from get_* nutrition siblings.

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?

Tells the agent to use get_nutrition_daily_food_log to obtain the required logId and date, establishing a clear prerequisite workflow. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives, but the retrieved-log workflow and coverage of both entry types effectively indicate when this tool is appropriate.

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