store_dish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool stores a dish and returns a confirmation with a path, but does not reveal whether the operation is idempotent, overwrites existing data, requires authentication, or has any side effects beyond storage. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise at two sentences plus docstring-style Args/Returns. It front-loads the main purpose. The Args section repeats the parameter name but is acceptable. It could be slightly tighter by removing the docstring formatting, but it remains efficient and scannable.

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?

Given the complexity of a free-form object parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what constitutes valid dish data, what the confirmation message contains, or any error conditions. An agent would likely need to guess or assume details, making the tool difficult to use correctly.

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 only parameter 'dish_data' is described as 'Dictionary containing dish data', which adds no information beyond the schema's type and title. The schema has no description for the parameter, and the description does not specify expected keys, structure, or constraints (e.g., required fields). With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 verb 'store' and the resource 'dish', and mentions it returns a confirmation. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_dishes' beyond the verb, nor does it specify if this creates a new dish or updates an existing one. It is specific enough to avoid tautology but lacks scope details.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_dishes' or 'create_mealplan'. The description only explains what it does, not when it is appropriate or when to avoid it. The existence of sibling tools for reading dishes and managing meal plans implies usage context, but no explicit direction is provided.

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