Update Nutrition Day

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the meal list is replaced and that other days are unaffected, which covers the most important side effects. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or return behavior, which prevents a higher score.

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 with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the sibling alternative is placed at the end where it naturally supports decision-making without distracting from the primary purpose.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is updated, what is replaced, and what is left untouched, while the input schema fully documents parameters. It could be more complete by stating the return/success behavior or the prerequisite that an active nutrition plan must exist, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping 'rename/re-note it, and/or replace its whole meal list' to the title, notes, and meals parameters, and by clarifying that these operations can be combined with 'and/or.' This exceeds baseline without duplicating schema details.

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 uses a specific action ('Adapts one day of the active nutrition plan') and enumerates the exact update operations: rename/re-note and replace the meal list. It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling update_nutrition_meal, so the tool's purpose is unmistakable.

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 states clearly when to use this tool (whole-day changes) and when not to ('Use update_nutrition_meal instead for a single-meal tweak'). It also adds a scope boundary: 'without touching other days,' giving an agent explicit routing and safety guidance.

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