update_food

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Patch a food.' It does not disclose idempotency, permission requirements, whether fields merge or overwrite, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise but at the expense of completeness. With 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, it fails to front-load critical information and is under-sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the complexity (5 params, no output schema, no schema descriptions), the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain update behavior, return values, or how to use parameters. Sibling tools are not differentiated.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to any parameter. It does not explain that food_id identifies the food to update or that other fields are optional attributes. Parameters remain completely unexplained.

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 the verb 'patch' and resource 'food', distinguishing it from create, delete, and read operations among siblings. However, it is very brief and does not explicitly mention that it updates an existing food entry, though implied by 'patch' and the required food_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_food, get_food, delete_food, or list_foods. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage.

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