add_food

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully indicates a prerequisite workflow (search first) and an optional step for serving sizes, but it does not describe side effects such as whether duplicate entries are created or whether the action is irreversible. It is not contradictory, but behavioral detail is modest.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the main action is front-loaded, and the supporting instructions are actionable. Every word contributes to making the tool callable.

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 full schema coverage and the procedural hints, an agent has all required information to invoke the tool correctly. The only gap is a note about response behavior or non-reversibility, which is a minor omission for a straightforward write operation with no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's references to search_food and get_food_details reinforce what the schema already states for food_id and serving_id but add no new meaning. No parameter semantics are clarified beyond the schema.

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 and target: 'Add a food item to your diary.' This is a specific verb-object statement that distinguishes it from read tools like get_diary. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like quick_add_calories, so it misses the top score.

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 gives explicit procedural guidance: use search_food to find the food ID first, and optionally use get_food_details for a serving size. This tells an agent the correct sequencing. However, it does not state when to prefer quick_add_calories or other alternatives, so the exclusion guidance is missing.

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