upsert_food_diary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose that nutrients are caller-calculated via M5 and that caller scope is restricted. However, it doesn't clarify whether 'upsert' means update or append, nor how write_mode affects behavior, nor permissions or idempotency. Some useful context but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and follows with a practical constraint. It is appropriately concise with no wasted words. However, domain jargon (MX-3, M5) may be cryptic, and the structure uses a parenthetical which slightly reduces scanability.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and low schema coverage, yet the description does not explain write_mode behavior, entry structure, or error/conflict handling. An output schema exists but is not visible; still, the description leaves significant gaps about edge cases and how this tool fits into the larger workflow.

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 compensate. It does add meaning for 'caller' (restricting to parent_assistant/child_companion) and gives hints about 'entries' (nutrient content pre-filled by caller), but patient_id and write_mode are not mentioned. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool writes/appends food diary entries ('写入/追加饮食日记条目'), which is a specific verb+resource action. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_food_diary_summary and assess_pew_risk, which are read/analysis tools. The caller restriction adds context but doesn't confuse the core purpose.

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 implies usage for writing/adding diary entries and gives a clear caller constraint (only parent_assistant / child_companion), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_food_diary_summary. There is no exclusionary guidance, so usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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