add_custom_food

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation), idempotentHint=false (not idempotent), and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns a food_id for subsequent logging, which is useful. However, it does not mention what happens if a food with the same name already exists or any other side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 and well-structured: a one-line summary, two brief usage notes, and a clear bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has 11 parameters and a moderate complexity, the description covers the essential steps (creation and subsequent logging). However, it lacks details on potential errors (e.g., duplicate name validation) and constraints (e.g., value ranges), which would improve completeness. The output schema is present but not relied upon in the description.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description provides per-parameter explanations with units, defaults, and units (e.g., 'Calories per serving (kcal)'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles, though some explanations are minimal (e.g., 'Fat per serving (g)').

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 'Create a custom food in Cronometer with specified nutrition', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_foods' (search) and 'get_food_details' (retrieve) by focusing on creation, and explicitly mentions using the returned food_id with 'add_food_entry'.

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 advises that nutrient amounts should be for the full serving size and directs the user to use the returned food_id with 'add_food_entry' after creation. This provides clear context for when to use the tool and what to do next, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for cases like duplicate food names.

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