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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial non-obvious detail of WHAT is destroyed: planned dinners on unlocked days within the span are removed from the plan. That 'unlocked' qualifier also implies locked dinners survive, which is real behavioral context. It stops short of saying whether the action is reversible or what happens if the date is already marked.

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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the side effect follows immediately, so an agent reading only the first clause still knows what the tool does.

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 mutation with a small, fully documented parameter set and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the one thing that matters most: the side effect on existing planned dinners. Minor gaps remain around reversibility and locked-day handling, but nothing blocking correct invocation 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%, so date, notes, and endDate are already fully documented in the schema, including that date is the first day of a span. The description only restates the endDate span semantics, adding no new format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond the 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Mark that the household eats out') and explains the span capability via endDate, which separates it from single-event siblings like add_guests_for_date. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent tools such as mark_away or delete_meal_event, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the endDate clause tells how to cover a multi-day span, and 'omit for a single evening' in the schema covers the single case. There is no explicit when-to-use versus mark_away, or when to prefer delete_meal_event or replan_open_days instead.

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