remove_food_entry

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Remove' aligns with them. No contradictions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as no mention of authorization or side effects, but it is adequate.

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 with no wasted words. It uses a clear structure: one-line purpose, prerequisite hint, and a simple Args list. 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?

For a simple removal tool with only two parameters, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, how to find entry IDs, and what the parameters mean. Output schema exists but is not needed for this level of completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds necessary meaning: entry_ids are 'list of serving/entry IDs to remove' and date is 'the date the entries belong to as YYYY-MM-DD (defaults to today).' This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'food entries from the Cronometer diary', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_food_entry and get_food_log.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Use get_food_log to find entry IDs.' It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the typical usage scenario.

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