mfp_set_nutrient_goals

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

Annotations already cover mutation (readOnlyHint false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds a meaningful behavioral caveat: MFP recomputes fiber from calories so custom fiber values are ignored. It also marks the tool as [stable]. 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 tight sentences plus a focused note. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the fiber caveat is placed where it is most useful. No filler or repetition of schema information.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly adequate. But the missing semantics around null values and units, plus the absence of any mention of response_format, leave meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke this tool correctly.

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% and the description does not compensate. It does not explain units (grams vs milligrams), the meaning of null defaults (leave unchanged vs set to zero), or how to interpret the integer minimums. Field names are self-explanatory but this is insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Description begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Set daily goals for ANY nutrient across every weekday.' The phrase 'not just the 4 macros' explicitly differentiates this tool from macro-focused siblings, giving agents a clear scope.

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?

Provides clear context for use (setting nutrient goals across weekdays) and an explicit when-not/alternative for fiber: 'use mfp_set_tracked_nutrients to surface fiber.' However, it does not fully delineate when to prefer the sibling mfp_set_goals for basic macro/calorie goals.

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