mfp_log_meal

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

The description clarifies that the tool logs all meal foods together in one call, which is useful beyond the raw annotations. However, it doesn't disclose whether repeated calls duplicate entries or whether logging replaces an existing meal for that diary day.

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 tight sentence with a stability tag. The action and target are front-loaded, and every word contributes.

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 schema and annotations provide enough for a basic invocation, but the description is thin on choosing between this and closely related siblings like mfp_add_food_to_diary or mfp_bulk_log. Given the large sibling set, the missing routing and side-effect context makes this only minimally complete.

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 contains no parameter-level guidance, but the input schema documents the important semantics: food_id source, servings units, date format/default, allowed meal names, and response_format. Since the schema covers these details, the missing parameter info in the description does not create a major gap.

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 names the exact resource ('a meal's foods to a diary day'), which clearly conveys the core action. It does not explicitly contrast itself with mfp_add_food_to_diary or mfp_bulk_log, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus mfp_add_food_to_diary (single food) or mfp_bulk_log, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. 'In one call' hints at batching, but the description never states when not to use it.

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