Create food

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is expected to be non-destructive but mutating. The description adds the context that it adds to a 'group vocabulary', which implies a state change and persistence, but it does not explain side effects like whether duplicate names are rejected or if integration with existing ingredient lines occurs immediately.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the primary action and purpose. It could further explain parameter details without becoming verbose, but it is appropriately 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 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that don't cover behavior beyond mutation status, the description provides minimal but sufficient context for the core action. However, it lacks details on return value, error conditions, or handling of duplicates, which would be helpful 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 25% (only 'label_id' has a description). The tool description does not explain any parameters beyond the stated purpose. For example, 'name' is required with max/min length but its role is implied; 'plural_name' and 'description' are entirely undocumented. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 states a clear verb ('adds') and specific resource ('food to the group vocabulary') and explains the purpose ('so ingredient lines can be matched against it'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'list_foods' or 'merge_foods' by focusing on creation and vocabulary addition.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'parse_ingredients' or 'create_recipe'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., group must exist) or when not to use it.

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