edit_food_entry

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It clarifies that the tool modifies an existing entry's amount or time, but does not describe what happens if the entry_id is not found or how unspecified fields are treated. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and well-structured: action sentence, prerequisite sentence, then a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 relatively simple edit tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the main usage flow and parameter formats. It could be slightly more explicit that at least one of grams/time should be supplied and that 'or' does not preclude changing both, but overall it is sufficient.

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%, so the Args block carries the full burden. It explains entry_id as 'the serving ID', grams as 'new amount in grams', time format as HH:MM or HH:MM:SS, and date format plus default. This gives the agent everything needed beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Change the amount or time of an already logged food entry.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_food_entry and remove_food_entry, and makes the operation immediately understandable.

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 procedural guidance: 'Use get_food_log to find entry IDs.' It clearly scopes the tool to already-logged entries, which implies it should not be used for adding or removing entries. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings, but the context is clear enough.

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