cyberboss_food_mark

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It explains that 'gone' statuses remove the item and 'present' statuses keep it active, listing examples. Could add details on side effects like reminder cancellation, but overall transparent.

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?

Description is relatively concise with clear action and conditional logic. The inline input format hint is slightly redundant given schema. Could be tightened further.

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?

Adequately describes behavior and key parameter but lacks return value information and does not mention output schema. Given no output schema, expectation for completeness is higher.

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 coverage is low (33%). Description adds meaningful explanation for 'status' parameter (gone vs present dichotomy) but provides no extra for 'id' or 'notes'. Partially compensates for low coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it marks a food item and distinguishes two scenarios based on status (gone vs present). It differentiates from siblings like 'remove' and 'update' by explaining the conditional removal or keeping.

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?

Implied usage is present from the behavior description, but no explicit when-to-use or comparison with sibling tools like 'cyberboss_food_remove' or 'cyberboss_food_update' is provided.

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