Log intake

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

Despite annotations carrying only generic flags, the description discloses a meaningful behavioral guardrail: the tool should not be invoked without explicit user intent and requires the explicit_user_intent flag to be true after a save/log/register request. It doesn't mention side effects like persistence or non-idempotency, but the consent requirement is a valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 short sentences front-load the critical user-intent requirement before mentioning accepted input forms. Every word adds information and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 17-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain what happens after logging, how to choose between text and structured data, how the bulk sibling differs, or what response the agent should expect. The explicit-intent guidance is necessary but not sufficient for reliable invocation.

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 only 18% across 17 parameters, so the description needed to compensate but only mentions 'text or meal_text plus structured food data.' It leaves most parameters (food, quantity, nutrients, food_ref, custom_food, grams_estimate, response_format, tags, etc.) without clarification, and does not explain how structured food data should be shaped.

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 names the exact action ('Log'), the resource ('an intake entry'), and the primary input modes ('text or meal_text plus structured food data'), so an agent can tell this is the single-entry logging tool. It does not explicitly reference the sibling nourish_bulk_log_intake or other log-related tools, but the singular scoping is enough to distinguish it from bulk logging.

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 gives a clear precondition and trigger: call only after explicit user intent, and set explicit_user_intent to true after the user asks to save/log/register. It does not explicitly describe when to prefer nourish_bulk_log_intake, nourish_update_intake, or nourish_log_water, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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