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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it specifies which days survive, that locked days require includeLocked, that hand-added shopping items are preserved while recipe lines are dropped, and that recovery is only possible via the app's «Angre» action immediately after. This is exactly the kind of consequence and undo disclosure a destructive tool needs.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence carries distinct information (scope, exclusions, side effect on shopping list, undo path). Phrasing is slightly compressed/telegraphic in places, but there is no wasted text.

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, two-parameter week-level mutation with no output schema, the definition covers scope, exclusions, side effects and undo. The only gap is that it does not indicate what the call returns or how many dinners were removed, which would help an agent confirm the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by tying includeLocked to the locked-day behavior ("a locked day stays unless includeLocked is true"). weekStart's week-resolution is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable since the schema explains it well.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ("Take every dinner off a week") plus a crucial scope qualifier — "keep the plan" — so an agent can tell this apart from delete_meal_event or replan_open_days without opening any schema. The scope of removal (all dinners in the week, plan shell preserved) is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a strong usage directive — "Ask the member first" before invoking — and clear carve-outs of what is not affected (passed days, evenings out, locked days by default). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling (e.g., delete_meal_event for a single dinner), so a 5 is not warranted.

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