Update nutrition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's write behavior aligns. The description adds minimal context beyond the annotations, only specifying that it updates 'planned calories' but not disclosing how it handles existing values, whether it replaces or adjusts, or any side effects. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides acceptable but not rich behavioral transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and target. There is zero filler or redundancy, and the most critical information is front-loaded. This is an exemplary concise description.

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 simple two-parameter tool with annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't mention what happens on success (e.g., return value or confirmation), whether the update applies to the current day or a specified date, or any prerequisites like coach permissions for updating athletes. The annotations and schema cover some context, but the lack of an output schema and minimal description leaves gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to use it.

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 coverage is 50% because planned_calories lacks a description, but the description's phrase 'daily planned calories' partially clarifies the integer parameter's meaning. The athlete parameter is well-described in the schema. The description adds marginal value over the schema, as it doesn't explain units, allowed ranges, or the effect of omitting athlete. It barely compensates for the missing parameter description.

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 'Update daily planned calories' clearly identifies the action (update) and the specific resource (daily planned calories), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It is distinct from siblings like tp_get_nutrition and other update tools, though it doesn't explicitly reference them. The name and description are consistent and specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 tool's purpose as an update is implied, and the presence of a sibling tp_get_nutrition suggests this is for writing rather than reading. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided, and there is no mention of when not to use it (e.g., for bulk updates or in read-only contexts). The usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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