tp_update_nutrition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'update' implying mutation, but does not disclose whether overlapping values are overwritten, whether it requires authentication/authorization, or what response to expect. The schema's coach-account note is outside the description.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It is efficient but arguably too sparse to fully describe the tool; however, brevity itself is well-executed.

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 tool with two simple params and no output schema, the description lacks context about usage, behavior, and alternative tools. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke it correctly without additional assumptions.

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 description clarifies that planned_calories is the daily calorie target, adding meaning beyond the schema (which lacks a description for that parameter). However, it does not explain units, range, or the semantics of the optional athlete parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'update' and resource 'daily planned calories', clearly distinguishing it from read-only siblings like tp_get_nutrition. However, it does not mention the optional athlete targeting or context of coach vs own profile, leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention tp_get_nutrition for viewing current values or any prerequisites like coach accounts, despite the schema noting that athlete is for coach accounts only.

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