Merge foods

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: the destructive action (deleting the source food) aligns with destructiveHint=true, and it adds the two-step confirmation token requirement. It also explains that ingredients are redirected (not just deleted). No contradiction with annotations.

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 consists of two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word is necessary and efficient. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description adequately covers the two-step process and the merge action. It does not specify the return value (e.g., the token format), but the schema already defines confirm_token as a string. Given the lack of an output schema, the description provides enough context for the agent to understand the flow and expected behavior.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the token flow ('call once to receive a token, then again with that token'), which clarifies the confirm_token parameter's role beyond the schema's static description.

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 a specific verb ('points... and deletes') and clearly identifies the resource ('foods'). It explains the merge operation: redirecting ingredients from one food to another and deleting the source. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_food' or 'merge_units'.

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 explicitly states the two-step confirmation process: 'call once to receive a token, then again with that token.' This provides clear guidance on how to use the tool. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context of merging foods is unique among siblings, making the usage intent clear.

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