mfp_set_goals

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds important behavioral detail: it performs partial updates, leaves unspecified values unchanged, and returns a confirmation message. This is meaningful context that helps the agent predict side effects.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args and Returns sections are useful, though there is minor redundancy between 'Update daily nutrition goals' and 'Sets new daily targets for the specified nutrients.' Overall it is appropriately sized with no significant waste.

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?

Given the annotations, schema, and output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what the tool updates, the partial-update behavior, the parameter list, and the return type. It does not mention validation ranges or alternatives to sibling tools, but those are either in the schema or not critical for invoking this tool correctly.

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?

The description enumerates all four nutrient parameters with their types and units, which compensates for the low reported schema coverage. The schema itself also documents ranges and examples. The description adds the key semantic that only provided values are updated, making the parameter behavior clearer.

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 identifies the action ('Update daily nutrition goals') and the resource (calories, protein, carbs, fat), with a specific verb and target. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like mfp_get_goals, but the wording is specific enough to avoid confusion with the measurement, water, or food-entry tools.

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 context for use: updating daily nutrition targets, with partial-update behavior ('Only updates the values that are provided; others remain unchanged'). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives such as mfp_get_goals, so it stops 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.