edit_food

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

The description confidently discloses that this is a mutation operation and specifically warns that delete=True removes the item. However, it does not state whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, what permissions are needed, or what happens after deletion; with no annotations, these are meaningful gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the item_id and the core editing scopes. The parenthetical lists are dense but efficient; only slight clutter remains in phrasing like 'or the numbers themselves.'

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 12-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is serviceable but incomplete. It provides useful lookup guidance and delete behavior, yet omits partial-update semantics and validation constraints, so an agent could still mis-invoke the tool with conflicting or incomplete parameters.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description maps nearly all 12 parameters: grams/amount/unit, name/food_id, meal, kcal/carbs/fat/protein, item_id, and delete. It adds substantial meaning beyond bare titles, though it does not handle edge cases like whether amount requires unit or how name is disambiguated.

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 names the specific operation ('Fix a logged food item by id') and enumerates the editable dimensions: amount, unit, food, meal, and macro numbers. This clearly distinguishes edit_food from log_food (new entries) and lookup_food (search), even without naming them.

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 establishes that the tool targets an existing logged item identified by item_id and points to lookup_food or an item's candidates for food_id. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name log_food as the alternative for new entries, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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