Add Food to Saved Meal

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description confirms a write operation (adding an item) and mentions a confirmation return. It does not contradict annotations and adds context about appending to an existing meal template.

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 succinct: a single sentence for the action, a bullet list of parameters, and a return note. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the parameter list could be integrated more naturally.

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 5 required parameters, no output schema, and a simple action, the description is adequate but lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., the saved meal must exist) or error conditions. Minimal completeness for a straightforward 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, describing each parameter. The description repeats them without adding significant new meaning (e.g., types or constraints are already in the schema). Baseline score 3 applies.

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 action: 'Add a food item to an existing saved meal template.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like `fatsecret_create_saved_meal` (create a new meal) and `fatsecret_get_saved_meals` (list meals).

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 implies usage (adding to an existing meal) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a new meal instead). It lacks 'when not to use' guidance.

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