update_food_entry

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

Discloses key behaviors beyond simple mutation: only works on chat-logged entries, omitted fields remain unchanged, and calories/macros must be totals for consumed amount. With no annotations, description carries full burden and does so well.

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?

Single well-structured paragraph with examples, warnings, and important notes. Slightly dense but every sentence adds value. Could benefit from bullet points for clarity but still concise.

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 tool with 36 parameters and no output schema, description covers all critical context: id requirement, field omission behavior, special rules for calories/macros, and the chat vs. app distinction. No gaps.

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 at 58% means many parameters have descriptions already. Description adds overarching semantics: only pass fields to change, total vs. per-serving rule. Given 36 parameters, this meta-information is valuable.

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?

Clearly states it updates a food entry logged via log_food_entry, with explicit examples ('wait, that was 2 cheeseburgers'). Distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing the source (chat vs. app) and the required id.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance (after log_food_entry), example corrections, required id from prior response, and a clear error-handling instruction (apologise and direct to app on 404).

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