delete_food_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the most safety-critical fact: the removal is permanent (irreversible). It also notes the entry-type scope, which helps interpret effects. It omits auth/permission needs and error behavior, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loads the destructive action, then scope, then sourcing guidance, then per-argument detail. Every sentence adds information; the Args section cleanly mirrors the two parameters without waste.

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 2-param destructive tool with an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), the description covers purpose, irreversibility, entry-type scope, ID sourcing, and both parameter formats. It's complete enough to call correctly, only missing edge/error handling nuance.

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 0% and the schema only offers a bare anyOf(integer,string) for log_id, so the description must compensate. It does: log_id is a 32-char hex UUID sourced from get_nutrition_daily_food_log, and meal_date is YYYY-MM-DD. This adds substantial meaning the schema lacks.

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 (Delete) and resource (food log entry / logged food item from the nutrition log), and clarifies it covers both QUICK_ADD and REGULAR_LOG entry types. This reasonably distinguishes it from the sibling delete_food (custom foods) and delete_activity, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to call get_nutrition_daily_food_log first to obtain the logId and date, which is real prerequisite guidance. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or what to do if the entry is missing, so it doesn't reach a full 5.

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