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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: only the plan entry is removed and the underlying recipe survives, which is exactly the fact an agent needs before a destructive call.

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, zero filler, with the when-to-use condition front-loaded and the safety-relevant caveat second. Nothing redundant relative to the schema.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger, identifier source, and non-destruction of the recipe. The only real omission is that a call removes a batch of meals each keyed by its own date, which an agent must learn from the schema.

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 and the schema already documents date and entryId. The description reinforces the entryId provenance from get_meal_plan but says nothing about the batch shape, the per-item date requirement, or the 21-item cap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Removes entries from the user's Recipe One meal plan') and pins the identifier to entryId from get_meal_plan. The clarifier 'the recipe itself is kept' distinguishes it from delete_recipe and from add_to_meal_plan without ambiguity.

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?

'Use this when the user wants to unplan a meal' gives a clear triggering condition and points at get_meal_plan as the source of the entryId. It stops short of naming the boundary against replace_meal_plan_entry or explaining what to do if the entryId is stale, so the exclusion set is left implicit.

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