Forget personal nutrition memory

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds the requirement for explicit user intent, but does not elaborate on what happens if the parameter is false or if the id/label is not found. Some behavioral details remain implicit.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a destructive tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It covers the primary operation but does not describe error handling (e.g., missing id_or_label), response behavior, or confirmation steps. Given the tool's complexity, additional context would benefit an AI 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 low (33%), with only explicit_user_intent having a description. The tool description clarifies that id_or_label is used for identification ('by id or label'), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, response_format is not addressed, and the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions on all parameters.

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 action (Delete), the resource (local remembered meal), and the criteria (by id or label after explicit user intent). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like nourish_delete_intake and nourish_clear_day.

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 specifies 'after explicit user intent,' which provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling tools context helps fill that gap.

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