Remove a planned meal from the household's meal plan. This is a soft delete: the entry stops appearing in list_meal_plans and its date/meal-type slot becomes free again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the meal plan entry to delete (from list_meal_plans) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| variant | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true, but the description adds crucial nuance by explicitly stating this is a soft delete. It discloses that the entry stops appearing in list_meal_plans and the slot becomes free again, which goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent accurate expectations about reversibility and side effects. There is no contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences long, directly states the action, and then explains the key behavioral consequence. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no redundant words, and every sentence adds value. This is an exemplary level of conciseness.
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?
The description fully covers the tool's behavior: what it removes, the soft-delete nature, the effect on list_meal_plans, and the freeing of the slot. Given the simple single-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, no additional information about return values is necessary. The description is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
The schema already provides a complete description for the single parameter 'id' ('ID of the meal plan entry to delete (from list_meal_plans)'), with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, so a baseline score 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a planned meal from the household's meal plan.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from delete tools for other entities (e.g., delete_recipe, delete_task) and from list/update meal plan tools. The effect is further clarified by referencing list_meal_plans and the date/meal-type slot.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to remove a specific meal plan entry, freeing its date/meal-type slot. It also implies a soft-delete behavior that affects list_meal_plans. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using update_meal_plan for editing or list_meal_plans for viewing, so it stops short of a full 5.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions separating similar-sounding tools like create_calendar_event vs create_recurring_calendar_event. Shopping list operations (add, buy, remove, update) are clearly delineated.
All tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, get_*, etc. Even special operations like store_memory, recall_memory, and skip_recommendation fit the pattern.
With 68 tools, this server vastly exceeds a reasonable scope; the instruction manual indicates 50+ tools is an extreme mismatch. The breadth suggests the server should be split into focused sub-servers (tasks, shopping, calendar, etc.) rather than a single monolithic interface.
The tool surface covers full CRUD/lifecycle for all major resources: tasks, shopping, calendar, contacts, documents, appliances, vehicles, pets, recipes, meal plans, subscriptions, and memories. Additional features like house review, weather, and profile round out the household management domain.
