quick_add_calories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only restates the action without covering side effects. It does not state whether this appends a new diary entry, whether the entry is editable afterward, or how it impacts nutrition summaries and goals. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 totaling 17 words with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds only the optional-macro information and nothing is wasted. Structure is exemplary for the content it carries.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is lean but adequate. The schema covers parameters and the description covers purpose and optionality, but nothing addresses success/return behavior or the boundary with add_food. An agent would benefit from one more sentence on what the call returns.

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 schema already documents all six parameters, including optionality and the date default. The description's mention of optional carbs, fat, and protein is redundant with the schema but serves as harmless reinforcement. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Add calories to your diary') and names the entry mode ('Quick Add'), which conceptually separates it from the read-only siblings and add_food. However, it never explicitly names add_food or explains how Quick Add differs from logging a specific food, so sibling differentiation remains implicit rather than explicit.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the description never says 'use this when logging calories without a specific food item' or contrasts it with add_food. The 'Quick Add' phrasing implies the fast-entry use case, but an agent must infer when this tool is the right choice among siblings.

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