log_meal

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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the single idempotentHint: deduplication by date + recipe name, and return confirmation contents (date, recipe, people). This tells the agent what happens on duplicate writes, which the annotation alone does not.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, when-to-use, behavior/return. No waste, easily scannable.

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 3-param write with only idempotentHint annotation and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, dedup behavior, and return shape. Minor gap: no note on whether people list must be non-empty or how meal history retrieval interacts.

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%, so all three params are documented in schema. The description mentions dedup key 'date + recipe name' implicitly supporting date and recipe semantics, but adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 verb+resource ('Record a cooked meal') and the domain purpose (rotation tracking to avoid repeating meals). Among 18 siblings, this is clearly distinguishable from plan_and_shop or log_spend.

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN: logging what was cooked to avoid repeating meals in future planning.' Names the use case and its goal. No explicit exclusion conditions or named alternatives (e.g. vs get_meal_history), but the intent is clear.

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