Update intake

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds context about rescaling nutrients when quantity or grams_estimate changes, which is behavioral information beyond what annotations provide. The gating restriction is also an important behavioral trait. No contradictions with 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, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the gating constraint is clearly stated. Very efficient.

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?

The description covers the core behavior and access constraint, but given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of many parameters, it is not fully complete. The rescaling behavior is useful but other effects are omitted.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for 'id', 'quantity', and 'grams_estimate' (rescaling behavior). The other 6 parameters (tags, unit, notes, meal_type, timestamp, response_format) are not explained at all. This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.

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: 'Update a local intake entry by id.' It specifies the resource (intake entry) and the operation (update), and it distinguishes from siblings like nourish_delete_intake and nourish_log_intake. The additional detail about rescaling nutrients on quantity/grams_estimate changes adds specificity.

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 the gating requirement: 'requires explicit user intent — agents must not call this autonomously.' This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (only with user intent) and when not to (autonomously), which is crucial for an update operation.

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