delete_custom_food

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden. It discloses the permanent nature of the deletion and the requirement that the food not be in active use, which are important behavioral traits. It does not cover error handling or side effects, but the essential behaviors are clearly stated.

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 concise, starting with the purpose, then a brief note on constraints, and finally a clear Args section. No redundant information or filler; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's use.

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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It includes the essential context: action, resource, ID sourcing, and a critical precondition. It lacks explicit error scenarios but remains sufficient 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?

The single parameter food_id is fully described: it identifies the custom food to delete, is a 32-char hex string, and can be obtained from get_custom_foods or create_custom_food. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 deletes a custom food from the user's Garmin nutrition library, using the verb 'delete' and specifying the resource (custom food). It also adds the key detail that deletion is permanent, fully covering the action's intent.

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 guidance to use get_custom_foods to find the foodId, and mentions the precondition that the food must not be actively referenced in a logged meal. This gives clear context on when and how to use the tool, though it doesn't mention alternative tools for non-deletion operations.

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