edit_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'Edit an existing feed entry', which implies mutation but does not disclose specifics like whether updates are partial or full, required permissions, or side effects. More information is needed for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and provides a critical prerequisite, leaving no unnecessary words.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain most parameters, return values, or error handling. For an edit tool with many fields, this is incomplete.

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%, meaning the schema has no parameter descriptions. The description adds no information about the meaning or usage of parameters such as start, amount, bottle_type, units, left_duration, right_duration, last_side, or notes. It only mentions interval_id briefly, but not its format or how to obtain it.

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 clearly states 'Edit an existing feed entry', which is a specific verb and resource. It also directs the user to get interval_id from get_feed_history, distinguishing it from creation tools like log_bottle.

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 provides clear context: use this to edit an existing feed entry, and it tells the prerequisite step to get the interval_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives like log_bottle for new entries.

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