mfp_bulk_log

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

Annotations already communicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds the behavioral nuance of logging identical foods across many dates, but nothing about overwrite behavior, validation, or side effects beyond that. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The [stable] marker is a useful addition and the statement is appropriately sized for its purpose.

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?

The tool is a mutating bulk operation with nested input, but the detailed schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema make it callable. The description is terse and does not note edge cases like maximum dates, overwrite semantics, or per-date failure behavior, though these may be covered by the 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 description itself mentions no parameters, but the input schema provides detailed semantics for foods, servings, dates, meal, and response_format. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it relies fully on 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('log') and resource ('the same foods'), with a clear scope ('to many days at once'). This distinguishes it from single-day siblings like mfp_add_food_to_diary without requiring the agent to open the schema.

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 implies the usage scenario: when the same foods need to be logged across multiple days. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

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