Update Nutrition Meal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavior: the update is scoped to a single meal and does not regenerate surrounding content. However, it omits other consequential details such as whether changes are persisted immediately, how meal/day matching works, or what happens if the specified meal is not found.

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 two sentences with no filler. The operation, scope, and representative examples are all front-loaded, and every phrase contributes to an agent's ability to recognize and invoke the tool correctly.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is helpful but not fully complete. It covers what can be updated and at what scope, but does not explain return behavior, error cases, or how partial updates interact with existing meal fields, which an agent may need to know for correct invocation.

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 schema already describes 7 of 11 parameters, and the description groups the remaining numeric macro parameters under the word 'macros,' adding only generic meaning. It does provide useful high-level framing that all listed fields are adaptable, but it does not add detail beyond the schema for ambiguous cases like whether values are replacements or deltas.

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, 'Adapts', and names the exact resource: a single meal's recipe, ingredients, instructions, macros, and/or time within the active nutrition plan. It explicitly distinguishes the tool's scope by noting it does not regenerate the rest of the day or week, and examples clarify common use cases.

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 when to use the tool, including example user requests and the qualifier 'within the active nutrition plan.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as update_nutrition_day or update_nutrition_plan, but the meal-level scope and 'without regenerating the rest' strongly imply the boundary.

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