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

The description discloses that when recipeId is provided, any name is ignored and stored as null, a non-obvious behavioral trait not fully captured in the schema. Annotations already indicate a write operation, so no contradiction, but the description leaves unspecified whether creating a meal plan overwrites an existing entry for the same date/meal type.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by essential parameter logic. No filler or redundant details.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the schema covers all parameters, the description provides the core operational logic (date, meal type, recipe/name selection) sufficiently. However, it doesn't address conflict behavior with existing meal plans, which would be useful for a create operation.

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?

All seven parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), and the description adds precedence semantics between recipeId and name that the schema does not fully explain. It also references list_recipes, providing helpful sourcing context for the recipeId parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Plan' with a clear resource 'a meal for a specific date and meal type,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_meal_plan and delete_meal_plan. It also explains the two modes (recipeId or custom name), making its function 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?

It clearly states the tool's purpose and provides guidance on choosing between recipeId and name, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_meal_plan for modifying existing entries. The context is clear enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.

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