create_food_definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only says a definition is created. It does not cover duplicate handling, privacy or sharing scope, permission requirements, or what the tool returns. For a write operation, this is a meaningful gap.

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 concise sentence with the action and subject front-loaded. It contains no filler and does not restate the parameter schema.

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?

The fully described schema makes parameter semantics clear, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves return behavior and edge cases like duplicate names or existing food definitions unaddressed. It is minimally viable for a straightforward create operation, but not rich enough for fully autonomous context.

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 schema already documents all 14 parameters and their units. The description adds only a high-level 'per serving' framing and no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create') and resource ('custom food definition') and adds 'with nutritional info per serving,' making the action clear. The 'custom' qualifier also distinguishes this from lookup, search, update, and delete siblings.

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?

No guidance explains when to use this tool instead of alternatives like lookup_barcode, search_foods, list_food_definitions, or update_food_definition. The description simply restates the operation and leaves all usage context to inference.

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