create_meal_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It only restates the core operation and the quick-add option, both already reflected in the schema, and omits consequences such as whether this cnanges daily nutrition summaries, whether foodDefinitionId is validated, or whether required fields still apply for quick-adds.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the central operation is fron-loaded. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of information: what the tool does and the two modes it supports.

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?

With 14 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is arguably too thin. The schema covers parameter names, but the description's 'quick-add with just calories' could mislead an agent into ignoring the five required fields. It is adequate for a simple create operation but lacks caveats around validation and side effects.

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's reference to quick-add 'just calories' adds a small layer of intent, but the schema already documents isQuickAdd and foodDefinitionId clearly. It does not meaningfully clarify required-field relationships or the date/mealType constraints beyond the schema.

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 states the operation ('Log a meal entry') and the resource, and immediately distinguishes two supported modes: referencing a food definition or quick-adding with calories. This is specific enough to separate it from siblings like create_food_definition, list_meal_entries, and update_meal_entry.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The description implies it is for logging meals but does not differentiate it from log_meal_template or explain when quick-add vs food-definition reference should be chosen. The phrase about quick-adds gives some context, but not enough directional guidance.

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