Prepare: Exercise Diary Operation (FatSecret)

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

The description reveals the dry-run nature (preparation, not execution) and the specific FatSecret API constraints (template save, day commit, entry edit). It adds context about what operations are possible and what 'edit' does (shifting minutes). This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.) and clarifies the tool's non-executing, preparatory 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?

The description is concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, operation options, and alternative. No redundant or filler content.

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 description provides strong context about the tool's purpose and alternatives, but omits the critical follow-up step of committing the prepared operation (e.g., fatsecret_commit_prepared_operation) and does not describe the parameter structure for each method. Given the tool's complexity (3 methods, free-form params, no output schema), this leaves gaps for practical use.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics, but it fails to explain the 'params' or 'reason' parameters. It only names the method enum values without detailing the parameters required for each method, leaving the free-form params object entirely opaque.

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 'Dry-run: prepare an exercise-diary write,' identifying the exact purpose and scope. It enumerates the three supported methods and explicitly distinguishes the tool from fatsecret_log_one_off_exercise, making its function unambiguous relative to sibling tools.

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 provides explicit guidance: it states that FatSecret has no ad-hoc single-workout create, lists the three applicable methods, and directly instructs to use fatsecret_log_one_off_exercise for one-off workouts. This clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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