create_food

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

Annotations already specify readOnlyHint: false and idempotentHint: false, implying mutation. The description adds value by disclosing the authorization requirement and exclusivity. It does not contradict annotations. It could be improved by mentioning that the tool creates a new custom food definition accessible to the user's account.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences, each delivering a distinct piece of information (action, exclusivity, auth requirement). No wasted words.

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 large number of parameters (25) and the lack of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return value is (e.g., created food ID), nor does it clarify the many optional fields. However, for a creation tool with clear auth context, it's minimally adequate.

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 low at 28%, so the description should compensate. The description only mentions 'nutrition info' in general, with no specific parameter details. It does not explain what the many optional string parameters (e.g., iron, calcium) represent. With 25 parameters, more guidance would be helpful, but the required parameters are covered by the schema briefly.

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 'Create' and the resource 'custom food with nutrition info'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_foods and get_food by specifying creation of a custom food entry, but does not explicitly differentiate from create_food_entry which also creates a food-related 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 provides clear usage context: 'Premier exclusive' indicates a subscription requirement, and 'Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)' gives a prerequisite step. However, it does not specify when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if the user wants to log a food, they should use create_food_entry instead).

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