add_repeat_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that quantity is in default servings, days_of_week accepts shortcuts like 'all', 'weekdays', 'weekends', and the effect is auto-logging on selected days. This is sufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 bullet points and examples, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 6 parameters (4 required) and existence of an output schema, the description covers parameter meanings and usage thoroughly. It does not explain the output, but the output schema likely covers that. The description is sufficient for an agent.

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 0%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for all 6 parameters: food_id and food_source_id (from search_foods), quantity (default servings), food_name, diary_group (meal slots), days_of_week (specific format). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Add a recurring food entry that auto-logs on selected days,' which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_food_entry' (single entry) and 'delete_repeat_item'.

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 advises using 'search_foods' to find IDs and details the 'days_of_week' parameter format, providing clear context for using the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond 'search_foods'.

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