Soft-delete a planned meal. The entry leaves list_meal_plans and frees its date and meal slot again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Entry id from list_meal_plans. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| variant | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"ID of the meal plan entry to delete (from list_meal_plans)"New value: +"Entry id from list_meal_plans."Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "8f14e45f-ceea-467e-8a2f-1a2b3c4d5e6f"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"ID of the meal plan entry to delete (from list_meal_plans)"Input schema / properties / id / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "8f14e45f-ceea-467e-8a2f-1a2b3c4d5e6f"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds meaningful behavioral nuance beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: the operation is a soft-delete, meaning the entry disappears from list_meal_plans and the date/meal slot becomes free. This clarifies exactly what the destructive effect is rather than relying on the annotation flag alone.
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 with no filler: the first states the action, the second states the practical consequence. Information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.
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 one-parameter soft-delete with an output schema present, the description covers what happens to the list and the slot. It is slightly terse on reversibility, but the annotations already signal the destructive nature, so nothing essential 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% and the single id parameter is already documented as 'Entry id from list_meal_plans.' The tool description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states 'Soft-delete a planned meal' – a precise verb, resource, and mode (soft) in one phrase. It then names the concrete outcome (leaves list_meal_plans, frees the date/slot), distinguishing it from the create/update meal plan tools and other delete_* siblings.
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 clear context: this is a soft delete that removes the entry from list_meal_plans and makes the slot available again. It doesn't explicitly compare against alternatives, but the tool name plus consequence leave little ambiguity about 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.