Clear day

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

The description clearly discloses the destructive behavior ('delete all') and the safety requirement ('explicit user intent'), complementing the annotations (destructiveHint=true). No contradictions; it adds context beyond annotations by specifying the scope and condition.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and constraint. Every part earns its place with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the critical safety condition. It could optionally mention that only local entries are affected, but the current text is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. Minor gap: no mention of include_hydration parameter scope.

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?

The description adds no additional meaning beyond the input schema, which already has 50% parameter description coverage (explicit_user_intent and include_hydration have descriptions). The one-sentence description mentions the intent requirement but does not explain date format, include_hydration impact, or response_format. Baseline 3 applies as schema already provides moderate 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('local intake entries for a date'), making it clear what the tool does. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like 'nourish_clear_hydration_day' (hydration only) and 'nourish_delete_intake' (single entry).

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 states 'after explicit user intent,' guiding the agent to only use the tool when the user has clearly asked to delete data. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives beyond the implied constraint.

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