delete_custom_food

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial side effects: the food disappears from search and Custom Foods list, diary entries remain intact, and get_food_details can still retrieve it by ID. This goes beyond the annotations to explain the 'retiring' semantics, which is valuable for the agent.

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 succinct, with the core action stated first, then a clear bullet-like explanation of side effects and constraints, followed by an Args section. Every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the retirement model, what happens to diary entries, and what cannot be deleted. It lacks explicit idempotency mention but that's in annotations, and error handling is likely in output schema.

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?

The schema only defines food_id as an integer, with no description. The description adds that it's the ID of the custom food to delete, clarifying it's not a recipe or database food ID. This is minimal but necessary given the 0% 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 clearly states it deletes a custom food (one you created) by retiring it, distinguishing it from removing diary entries or editing foods. It also explicitly excludes database foods and recipes, which differentiates it from other tools like update_custom_food and remove_food_entry.

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?

It specifies that only custom foods can be deleted, not database foods or recipes, implying alternative tools for those. It also explains the retirement behavior (disappears from search, diary entries kept), which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, but the constraints are clear.

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