create_ration

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

Beyond the generic annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the tool is STRUCTURE ONLY and will not validate nutrition, it must never invent amounts, and all group assignments are 'created INACTIVE' pending activation in the app. This gives the agent critical knowledge about side effects and limitations that annotations alone do not convey.

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 tight and front-loaded: purpose first, then the STRUCTURE ONLY constraint, then the inactive-assignment behavior. Every sentence carries meaningful information and none is wasted on restating schema or annotations.

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 create tool with no output schema and five parameters, the description covers purpose, units, parameter framing, safety limits, and activation behavior. The only mild gap is that it does not describe what the tool returns or whether it returns the created ration, but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds meaning by framing ingredients as 'per-head-per-day pounds' as the canonical basis and by emphasizing that amounts must come from the user, not be invented. This adds useful semantic context beyond the raw schema.

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: 'Create a feed ration the user has already decided on,' and immediately clarifies the format ('named recipe in per-head-per-day pounds') plus optional group assignments. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like list_rations and get_ration and from other create tools.

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 an explicit precondition ('the user has already decided on') and an explicit when-not-to-use boundary: 'never formulate, balance, or validate nutritional adequacy... if asked what or how much to feed, decline and refer the user to their nutritionist.' This leaves no ambiguity about when the tool should or should not be invoked.

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