mfp_delete_food_entry

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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it confirms deletion is of an existing diary entry, explains the entry_id source, and states the return is a confirmation message containing the deleted entry's name and meal. No contradiction exists.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and organized into a short overview followed by a concise Args/Returns breakdown. Every sentence contributes either to selecting the tool, forming correct arguments, or understanding the result.

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 delete operation, the description is sufficiently complete: it provides the required identifier source, explains optional date behavior, notes the return type, and the destructive nature is already captured by annotations. No critical information needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Although schema description coverage is reported as 0%, the description enumerates both parameters and adds operational meaning: entry_id comes from mfp_get_diary JSON output, and date is optional with a default of today. It complements the schema rather than merely repeating it, though some details are redundant with the nested property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an existing MyFitnessPal diary entry.' It clearly identifies the object being deleted and points to the prerequisite entry_id source (mfp_get_diary), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mfp_update_food_entry and mfp_add_food_to_diary.

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 clear usage context: the entry_id must come from mfp_get_diary with response_format='json', and date defaults to today. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the prerequisite and default behavior provide enough guidance for an agent.

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