delete_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. It usefully reveals that only custom food definitions can be deleted, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, failure behavior, or result format. The essential destructive scope is clear, but behavioral detail is minimal.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with the key constraint placed immediately in parentheses. Every word earns its place and there is 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?

For a one-parameter destructive operation, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient: the agent knows what action to take, what target is allowed, and what input is required. The only real gap is lack of behavioral context such as whether deletion is permanent or requires specific permissions, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for the single foodId parameter. The description adds no extra meaning about how foodId is resolved or what format it should take, so it neither improves nor detracts from the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('custom food definition'), and adds the important scoping detail that system foods cannot be deleted. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_meal_entry and update_food_definition.

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 parenthetical '(cannot delete system foods)' gives an explicit applicability boundary, telling the agent when this tool should not be used. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the resource is unique enough among siblings that routing is still unambiguous.

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