log_food

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds. It discloses that this uses Garmin's Quick Add feature, that meal assignment happens automatically by matching meal_time against meal start/end windows, and that it falls back to SNACKS. This is valuable, non-obvious behavior beyond the schema.

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 well structured: a one-line purpose, a short behavioral explanation, and a compact parameter list. Each sentence adds necessary information, and nothing feels redundant or superfluous.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and an empty schema, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly: it provides formats, units, required inputs, and explains the non-obvious meal-time behavior. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-value detail in the description 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 Args block fully compensates. Every one of the 7 parameters is described with meaningful detail: date format, time format and timezone context, display-name semantics, and units for calories, carbs, protein, and fat.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Quick-add a food entry with macro values to the nutrition log.' It further clarifies that logging happens 'directly by name and macros without requiring a food ID,' which clearly distinguishes this from ID-based logging tools like log_custom_food.

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 communicates the intended scenario: use this for quick-add entries when you have name and macros and no food ID. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the 'without requiring a food ID' and Quick Add context make the usage situation clear enough.

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