share_food_to_community

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the core side effect — the food definition becomes accessible to all users — but does not mention whether the action is reversible, whether it creates a community copy versus moving the original, or any permission/ownership constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence contains the action, object, destination, and outcome without filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool, the purpose and parameter are adequately covered. However, with no annotations or output schema, the description does not explain the return value, reversibility, or failure behavior of a consequential public-sharing operation, leaving some gaps.

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% and foodId is already documented as 'ID of the food definition to share'. The description adds little beyond a 'user' qualifier, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Share'), the exact resource ('a user food definition'), the destination ('the community database'), and the intended result ('all users can access it'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like share_meal_template and share_project.

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 implies the use case: when a user wants to make a food definition publicly available in the community database. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, mention exclusions, or provide conditions such as ownership requirements.

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