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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false but say nothing about effect. The description adds the crucial consequence of the write — the dish is lifted in the next planned week as a weight, not a rule — and clarifies that a repeat call becomes a vote rather than a duplicate. Return value and whether a wish can be removed are not covered, keeping this below a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the duplicate-vote behavior, then effect, then title resolution. No filler and no repetition of annotations.

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 two-parameter write with no output schema, the description covers action, duplicate behavior, downstream effect, and title sourcing. It leaves the response shape and any permission/pairing constraints implicit, but nothing essential to calling it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a useful cross-reference by naming get_recipes as the source of a valid title, which shapes how the field should be populated, but memberName semantics are left entirely to 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?

"Put a dish on the household's wish list, or add a vote when it is already there" gives a specific verb+resource plus the upsert-on-duplicate behavior in one clause. The closing line "it is a weight, never a rule" distinguishes it from the many upsert_*_rule siblings that also shape planning, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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 supplies the usage context that matters: a wish influences the next planned week softly, in contrast to hard rules, which is exactly the decision an agent faces when a user expresses a preference. It also routes to get_recipes for titles. It stops short of stating explicit preconditions or exclusions (e.g., whether this works when no plan is active).

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