add_food_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains default behaviors (e.g., measure_id defaults to universal measure, quantity defaults to weight_grams) and parameter interactions. Though it omits error handling or auth requirements, it provides enough context for safe usage.

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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, usage guidance, and a formatted arg list. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, parameter behaviors, and default logic comprehensively. The output schema likely handles return values, so no gap exists.

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%, but the description compensates fully by detailing all 7 parameters in the 'Args' section, including meanings, defaults, and formats (e.g., date as YYYY-MM-DD). This exceeds baseline expectations.

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's purpose: 'Add a food entry to the Cronometer diary.' It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('food entry'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_foods and get_food_details by mentioning them as prerequisites.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use search_foods to find food_id and food_source_id, then get_food_details for measure_id and weight_grams.' It also covers a special case for CRDB/custom foods, offering clear when-to-use instructions and alternative tool dependencies.

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