update_meal_entry

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, but it only says 'update' without revealing side effects, partial-update semantics, required permissions, error behavior, or return value. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with many optional parameters.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and easy to parse, though the brevity contributes to the lack of contextual detail penalized elsewhere.

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?

This is a 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations. The one-sentence description does not clarify whether updates merge with existing fields or replace them, what the response looks like, or which combinations of optional fields are valid. The description is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 all 15 parameters already have individual descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how the parameters relate to the update operation, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clear verb ('Update') and resource ('existing meal entry'), which distinguishes it at a basic level from sibling tools like create_meal_entry and delete_meal_entry. However, it nearly restates the tool name and provides no additional scope or filtering details, so it stops short of being fully informative.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_meal_entry or update_meal_template. The phrase 'existing meal entry' implies an entry must already exist, but there is no explicit direction or exclusion of other tools.

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