Update Nutrition Plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the in-place nature of the update and reassures that days and meals are untouched. However, it does not describe what happens if no active plan exists, whether fields are merged or fully replaced, or what the response looks like, leaving some uncertainty.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the action, names the target, enumerates the permissible fields, and states the exclusion boundary. Every clause contributes necessary information with no filler.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core context: what is updated, at what level, and what is explicitly left alone. It omits edge cases like an absent active plan or exact merge/replace behavior, but it is reasonably complete for a simple metadata update tool.

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 listing all four parameters and using 'and/or' to signal that any subset may be provided, which reinforces the schema's zero required fields and clarifies partial-update semantics.

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 verb ('Adapts') and a specific resource ('active nutrition plan'), then enumerates the exact metadata fields involved. It also explicitly excludes days and meals, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_nutrition_day and update_nutrition_meal.

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 clearly scopes this tool to plan-level metadata and states that it does not touch days or meals, implying that day/meal-level changes belong to sibling tools. It does not explicitly name those alternatives or give a hard when-not-to-use rule, but the active-plan qualifier and exclusion provide practical guidance.

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