Update intake

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

Annotations already signal mutability, idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful context: quantity or grams_estimate changes rescale nutrients to keep summaries consistent, and the entry is local. This is useful beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action comes first, the key side effect second, and the gating constraint last—every sentence earns its place.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no per-parameter descriptions, this description is too thin to fully guide correct invocation. It explains rescaling behavior but omits semantics for most optional fields, return behavior, and alternatives.

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 across 9 parameters. It only adds meaning to id, quantity, and grams_estimate; tags, unit, notes, meal_type, timestamp, and response_format remain semantically undocumented.

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 states a specific action ('Update'), a clear resource ('a local intake entry'), and the lookup basis ('by id'). This is enough to distinguish it from logging, listing, and deleting intake, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 provides an explicit gating rule: requires explicit user intent and agents must not call this autonomously. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like delete-and-relog or bulk logging, so it falls short of a 5.

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