Log intake

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by requiring explicit user intent, which is a guard against accidental logging. It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the key condition and accepted inputs. Every word earns its place, no fluff.

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?

With 17 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description fails to cover most parameters or explain the overall input structure. It mentions 'structured food data' but does not clarify what fields are involved.

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 very low (18%). The description only mentions 'text or meal_text plus structured food data' and the explicit_user_intent parameter, leaving many parameters unexplained. Insufficient compensation for low schema 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 clearly states the tool logs an intake entry, with a specific condition. It distinguishes from siblings like nourish_estimate_meal or nourish_bulk_log_intake by emphasizing the requirement for explicit user intent.

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?

Explicitly says to use only after explicit user intent and instructs to pass explicit_user_intent: true when user asks to save/log/register. This provides clear usage context, though it does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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