mfp_delete_custom_food

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly warns that deletion is 'not recoverable' and that MyFitnessPal may refuse deletion of a food referenced by a logged diary entry. It also states the return is a confirmation string with the HTTP status, adding useful behavioral context annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and well-structured: operation, critical caveats, then Args/Returns. Every sentence adds information, and the destructive warning is front-loaded near the purpose statement.

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 single-parameter destructive deletion, the description plus annotations cover the action, the risk of irreversibility, the refusal edge case, and the return value. No essential caller information appears to be missing.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain how to obtain or identify food_id, but it only lists '(food_id)' without elaboration. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter name, leaving the agent to inspect the schema or infer from sibling tools.

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'), a specific resource ('user's custom foods'), and the lookup method ('by id'), which distinguishes it from other deletion/removal siblings like mfp_remove_food_from_diary. The operation is immediately unambiguous.

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 purpose sentence implies the tool is used when a custom food needs to be deleted, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as mfp_edit_food, mfp_delete_meal, or mfp_remove_food_from_diary. There is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance beyond the basic operation.

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