log_from_template

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description's real contribution is the multiplicative nutrient semantics of portion_factor, which is genuine behavioral context not present in the schema. It stops short of noting duplicate-logging behavior despite idempotentHint=false, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then inline param semantics in a single dense passage with no wasted sentences. Slightly compressed, but every clause carries information an agent needs before invoking.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the mutation/idempotency profile. For a 5-param write tool with zero schema descriptions, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all param meaning – and it does: name resolves via list_meal_templates, eaten_at gives format 'YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM' and default now, wellbeing/symptoms are flagged optional, and portion_factor is explained with worked values (1.0 = one portion, 1.5 = one and a half).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Log a meal from a saved template in one call') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling log_meal for untemplated meals. An agent can tell exactly what this does and which sibling it is not.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and its selecting condition ('For a meal without a template use log_meal') and routes the agent to list_meal_templates for resolving the name. Both the when-to-use and when-not-to-use cases are covered.

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