Prepare barcode meal log

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context with 'Stage', implying a two-phase flow rather than immediate commit, but it never says how the staged entry is finalized (e.g. confirm_action) or what happens on re-staging.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It does lean on internal jargon ('ReceiptCal meal') that costs a little clarity for the space it saves.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations explaining the staging lifecycle, the description should cover prerequisites, the confirm/cancel step, and the meaning of scan_id. It covers almost none of this, leaving an agent unsure how to complete the log.

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 0% and the description only loosely names two of three parameters ('barcode', 'serving mass'); the required scan_id is never mentioned at all. No units, format, or range guidance is provided, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific action ('Stage logging') plus the resources involved (resolved product barcode and serving mass), which distinguishes it from resolve_barcode and the broader prepare_log_* siblings. The 'ReceiptCal meal' target is jargon but the core verb+resource is 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 word 'resolved' implicitly signals the prerequisite that the barcode must already have been resolved (via resolve_barcode) before staging. However, it never states when to prefer this over prepare_log_recognized_food, prepare_log_meal_request_serving, or the other log-staging siblings, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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