create_food_entry

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the auth requirement, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like side effects, confirmation, or error handling. With annotations covering the write nature, the description adds some value but not comprehensive disclosure.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. It is efficient and free of fluff. However, the second sentence could be merged with the first to reduce redundancy, so it is not maximally concise.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., entry ID, confirmation) and any constraints. It only highlights three required parameters and auth, missing critical context like behavior on duplicate entries, date format implications, or error scenarios. This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions that 'food_id, serving_id, and meal type' are required, but this is already captured in the schema's required array. No additional semantic meaning (e.g., format, constraints) is added beyond the schema.

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 action ('Add a food diary entry') and the resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'edit_food_entry' (modify) and 'delete_food_entry' (remove). The verb+resource pattern is specific and unambiguous.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)') which provides context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'edit_food_entry' for modifications). No when-not-to-use guidance is given, making it adequate but not strong.

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