Prepare: Favorite Change (FatSecret)

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

The description adds key behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a dry-run (no actual favorite change), and it reveals tier-based constraints for adding/removing vs. listing. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but 'Dry-run' is not captured by annotations. However, it does not explain the side effects of preparation (e.g., whether a prepared operation is stored) or the two-step commit flow, leaving some ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with a concise parenthetical for tier information. Every word contributes value: 'Dry-run' sets expectation, 'mark/unmark' specifies the action, 'food or recipe' scopes the resource, and the tier note is practical. No redundancy or filler.

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 the complexity of a two-step 'prepare' flow (visible in sibling commit_prepared_operation), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how this tool relates to commit_prepared_operation, what output or state it produces, or how to populate the 'params' object. The dry-run and tier hints help, but the lack of param semantics and commit-flow context leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description provides no parameter meanings. The 'method' enum is self-explanatory, but 'params' is an opaque generic object with no field guidance, and 'reason' is undefined. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, so the agent would not know how to construct valid parameters (e.g., food_id, recipe_id).

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 explicitly states the tool's function: a dry-run to mark/unmark a food or recipe as a favorite. The verb 'mark/unmark' is specific to the favorite-change operation, and the scope (food or recipe) is clear. It distinguishes from sibling prepare_* tools by focusing on favorites, and the 'Dry-run' prefix clarifies it is a preparation step rather than a direct action.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool via 'Dry-run' and the parenthetical about Basic/Premier tiers. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., commit_prepared_operation) or state when not to use it. The tier information is a useful guide, but there is no direct comparison to other favorite-related tools or the commit step.

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