log_food

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers meaningful context: it reveals the non-obvious meal-determination logic (matching meal_time against meal startTime/endTime windows, falling back to SNACKS) and the timezone caveat for meal_time. For an unannotated mutation tool it could still disclose more (e.g., whether repeated calls duplicate entries, or reversibility), but the critical hidden behavior is surfaced.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by one mechanism sentence, then a compact args list. Each line in the Args block adds format or unit information the schema lacks, so it earns its place. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but nothing is wasted.

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-required-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and zero annotations, the description is notably complete: it covers purpose, mechanism, all parameter formats/units, and the non-obvious meal-window fallback. The output schema covers return-value expectations, so that gap is not the description's fault. The only real absence is explicit guidance on when to prefer sibling tools, which is also reflected in the usage_guidelines score.

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 fully compensates by documenting all 7 parameters with useful semantics: exact formats ('YYYY-MM-DD', 'HH:MM:SS'), units (kcal, grams), and the timezone qualifier on meal_time. It also explains how meal_time behaviorally maps to meal selection, which the bare schema cannot convey. No parameter is left underspecified.

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 resource: 'Quick-add a food entry with macro values to the nutrition log.' It further differentiates from siblings by stating it logs 'directly by name and macros without requiring a food ID,' which clearly separates it from log_custom_food and search_foods. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 implies when to use this tool ('without requiring a food ID' and 'Uses Garmin's Quick Add feature') and explains the automatic meal assignment behavior. However, it never explicitly names alternatives (e.g., log_custom_food for ID-based logging) or states when-not-to-use conditions. The routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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