set_nutrition_daily_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses the read-modify-write flow, merge semantics for omitted fields, unit conventions for macros, and Garmin's silent correction of large calorie-to-macro mismatches. This goes well beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Every sentence carries operational value. The purpose is front-loaded, behavioral caveats are compactly stated, and the Args section directly maps to the schema without 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 5-parameter write tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers all parameters, required format, merge behavior, and the key rounding constraint. No critical information for calling it correctly appears to be missing.

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 section must compensate. It does: date gets YYYY-MM-DD format and inheritance context, calorie_goal gets kcal units, and all macro params get gram units. The merge behavior clarifies that null/default params mean 'leave unchanged.'

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+resource: 'Update daily nutrition goals (calorie target and macronutrient targets).' It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_nutrition_daily_settings by emphasizing write/merge semantics.

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: settings are typically set once and inherited across days, per-day overrides are accepted, and only provided fields are changed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the update-vs-read distinction against the sibling list is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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