mfp_rename_meals

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, not destructive), so the description only needs to add context. It adds the default-slot mapping and a '[stable]' note, but does not disclose effects on existing diary entries or whether renamed slots are persisted beyond the operation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key action, resource, and transformation are all immediately visible.

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 rename operation with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance and side-effect detail, but the schema and annotations account for most operational constraints.

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 clarifies that the 'names' array should replace the default diary meal-slot labels and provides the default-to-custom mapping that the bare schema does not fully express. The optional 'response_format' parameter is left to the schema, but the main parameter's semantics are meaningfully enhanced.

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 states a specific verb ('Rename') and a clear resource ('the diary meal slots') with a useful transformation mapping ('Breakfast/Lunch/Dinner/Snacks -> your own'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mfp_list_meals, mfp_create_meal, or mfp_log_meal.

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 makes it evident that the tool is for renaming diary meal-slot labels, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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