delete_food_entry

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

The annotations already declare 'destructiveHint: true' and 'idempotentHint: true'. The description correctly implies mutability ('delete') which aligns with this. However, it doesn't disclose the result of idempotency (e.g., calling again on a deleted entry), rate limits, or cascading effects, which would have raised the score.

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 very concise at two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action, and the second provides critical imperative setup information. No words are wasted.

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?

For a simple mutation with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It includes necessary auth context but feels slightly light. The setup dependency is its main value add.

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%, and the only parameter 'food_entry_id' is self-explanatory. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('delete'), the resource ('food diary entry'), and the identifier ('by ID'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'edit_food_entry' or 'create_food_entry' by specifying the action and that it uses an ID.

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 a prerequisite (requires profile auth) and an action to perform first (check_auth_status). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or discuss alternatives like batch deletes or soft deletes.

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