log_food

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that one-off entries are 'always recorded as estimated,' that 'at defaults to now,' and explains the unconventional date rule ('04:00 Europe/Amsterdam day rule, not a calendar date'). These are critical behavioral traits not inferable from the schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses clear structure. It efficiently conveys parameter alternatives, behavior, and return value in just a few sentences with no wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, dual usage modes, no annotations), the description covers purpose, parameter selection, behavioral nuances, and return value. The output schema already documents the return shape, so the description's additional details on date handling and estimation status make it complete for an agent to use 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains grams, product_id (and its source), name+macros (per 100g, estimated), and at (default behavior and date rule). However, it does not explain the 'entered_as' parameter at all, leaving a gap in parameter semantics.

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 function: 'Log that `grams` of a food were eaten.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_product and add_product by focusing on logging consumption rather than searching or creating products.

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 prescribes usage: 'Pass exactly one of: product_id (from find_product, for a Catalog item) or name + macros ... for a one-off.' This provides clear conditions for when to use each parameter combination, and implies using find_product first to obtain a product_id.

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