update_food_definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add the meaningful limitation that system foods cannot be updated, which is not present in the schema. However, it omits details such as whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens when the foodId does not exist, and whether custom foods have any special 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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key constraint in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail.

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 schema covers all parameters and the description adds the critical system-food restriction, making the tool minimally usable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves some important operational ambiguity—particularly whether omitted fields are left unchanged or reset—so it is not complete enough for confident invocation in all cases.

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 15 parameters. The description adds only the 'custom food' context, which is useful but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('custom food definition'), and adds a key distinguishing constraint: system foods cannot be updated. This separates it from create_food_definition, delete_food_definition, and other update tools in the sibling list.

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 gives an explicit when-not condition: do not use this for system foods. It does not name alternatives like create_food_definition for new foods or list_food_definitions for finding custom food IDs, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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