Bulk log intake

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds that each item goes through the same pipeline, that the batch shares one intent flag, and that per-item success/failure is returned so partial failures don't lose the rest. This covers key behavioral traits beyond annotations, though it does not discuss rate limits or auth.

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?

Three sentences—first states purpose, second clarifies requirement, third gives example. No redundant words, front-loaded with the main action.

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 no output schema, the description adequately notes the return format (per-item success/failure). It covers the batch behavior, intent requirement, and ties to sibling tool. Could mention potential errors (e.g., invalid items beyond schema constraints), but overall complete for the complexity.

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 67%, and the description adds meaning by explaining that `explicit_user_intent` covers the entire batch and that each `items` element gets its own intake entry using the same pipeline as the single-item tool. This supplements the schema's descriptions for `text` and `meal_type`.

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 'Log multiple intake entries in a single call' and differentiates from the sibling `nourish_log_intake` by noting the same pipeline but batch intent. It provides a concrete use case (Telegram user logging multiple meals), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 mentions the requirement for `explicit_user_intent: true` and that the batch shares one intent flag, giving clear context. It implies the alternative single-entry tool (`nourish_log_intake`) but does not explicitly state when to prefer one over the other, e.g., 'For a single meal, use nourish_log_intake'.

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