delete_meal

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

Despite strong annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds important behavioral detail: irreversibility, cascade deletion of linked hydration events, and the exact error behavior when a match is not exactly one meal. It also clarifies that nothing is deleted on ambiguity, which is critical safety context beyond the 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?

The description is longer than average, but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with purpose, then organized into clearly capped sections (FIND THE MEAL, HYDRATION) with no filler or repetition.

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 destructive, irreversible operation, the description covers all critical aspects: how to identify the exact meal, what happens on ambiguity, retry guidance, and cascade effects. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's responsibility. Nothing essential is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial selection logic: id is an alternative to date+name, name is a case-insensitive substring used only for disambiguation, and date defaults to today. This gives the agent the decision rules needed to choose the right parameter combination, going well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a meal entry.' It also states the exact triggering condition ('when the user explicitly asks to remove or delete a logged meal'), which clearly distinguishes it from related meal tools like update_meal and 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance, including the user-intent trigger. It also provides a detailed decision procedure for locating the meal (id vs. date+name, name only when multiple meals exist) and an explicit exclusion: do not issue a separate hydration delete. This fully routes the agent away from incorrect usage.

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