log_food_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: mutation (logging), deduplication within one hour, sync timing to iOS app, and date/timezone interpretation. It also warns against logging water and instructs to omit uncertain micros.

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 well-organized with clear sections (examples, warnings, date/timezone, deduplication). While a bit lengthy, every sentence adds value. Front-loads the core purpose and required fields effectively.

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 the tool's complexity (35 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers usage guidelines, deduplication, sync behavior, date handling, and explicit exclusions (water). No gaps remain for an agent to misuse the tool.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that required fields must be totals for consumed amount, not per-serving, and clarifies the date parameter with examples of accepted formats and timezone resolution. It also advises on optional micros and the numberOfServings parameter for deduplication, which the schema does not detail.

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 the tool logs a single food entry into the user's Iridium food diary, with examples like cheeseburger, snack, meal. It specifies required fields (name + calories + protein + carbs + fat) and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool log_hydration.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool vs log_hydration (e.g., do not log water here, use log_hydration instead). It also provides guidance on handling drinks that are both food and fluid, and explains deduplication behavior and how to log multiple servings.

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