Log intake

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

Annotations already indicate a mutation tool (readOnlyHint=false) with no destructive hint. The description adds the behavioral constraint of requiring explicit user intent, but doesn't elaborate on side effects, authorization needs, or error behavior, which would add value beyond annotations.

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 very concise—two sentences that immediately convey the critical requirement of explicit user intent. No unnecessary words, and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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 high parameter count (17), no output schema, and many sibling tools (over 40), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or how it relates to other logging or estimation tools, leaving significant gaps for 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?

With only 18% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by clarifying the two input modes (text or meal_text plus structured data), but it does not explain the meaning of other parameters like tags, notes, unit, or nested objects like food_ref and custom_food.

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 logs an intake entry, emphasizing the need for explicit user intent. It distinguishes itself from estimation and update tools, though could be more explicit about its specific role among many logging tools.

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 instructs when to use the tool ('only after explicit user intent') and how to set 'explicit_user_intent' to true. It also mentions acceptable input modes (text or meal_text plus structured data), but lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.

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