mfp_edit_food

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral specifics: it uses PATCH, preserves the food id, and only changes provided fields. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent confidence about partial updates and state preservation. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a stability marker, followed by the key behavioral nuance. No filler words, and every clause adds value. Perfectly structured for scanning.

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?

With 11 parameters and a low schema coverage, the description is too thin to be fully self-sufficient. It does not mention that the food must be from the user's own list (though the schema hints via 'from mfp_list_own_foods'), nor does it explain error cases like a missing food_id, or the return format. Annotations carry some weight but the description could be richer to cover these gaps. It's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0% per context signals, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. However, it only gives a general rule ('Only the fields you pass are changed') without explaining that null means 'no change' or detailing what each field (e.g., fat, carbs, brand_name) represents. The schema has minimal descriptions for a few fields, but the description itself adds almost no per-parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer from names and defaults.

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 'Edit' and the resource 'custom food', and adds the critical scoping phrase 'IN PLACE' which distinguishes it from creating or deleting. It also mentions the food id is preserved, which differentiates it from a create operation. This is specific and 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 description implies when to use it (when you need to modify an existing custom food while keeping its identity) without explicitly naming alternatives. It states that only passed fields change, which guides partial updates, but does not explicitly compare with create or delete tools. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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