log_meal

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing that entries are auto-approved, which matters given the existence of approve_staged_source and list_pending_reviews siblings. It also explains that nutrient estimation is model-generated 'including from a photo'. It stops short of describing edit/delete or duplicate behavior.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and the required parameter lead, followed by per-parameter semantics in a compact semicolon-delimited form. The em-dash 'Review — query_food' fragments are slightly awkward but every line carries usable information.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers nearly all parameters and the approval behavior. Missing minor coverage of notes, portion, and nutrient_source, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 the load and largely does: it documents meal_type values, the eaten_at ISO format and default, the {code: amount} shape of nutrients with a long code list, the added_sugar vs natural-sugar distinction, glycemic_index/load scope, and symptoms/wellbeing semantics. Only notes, portion, and nutrient_source (default model_estimate) go unexplained.

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 and resource ('Log a meal into the diary') and adds the consequential detail that the entry is auto-approved. It does not explicitly name which sibling it supersedes (save_meal_template, log_from_template, list_pending_reviews), though it does point to query_food and query_nutrition at the end.

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?

Usage is implied by the closing pointers ('Review — query_food; daily norms — query_nutrition'), which route the agent for follow-up reads but never state when to choose this tool over log_from_template or save_meal_template. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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