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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value on top: the delete cascades to every meal in the plan, requires Subscriber entitlement, and is irreversible. The irreversibility line overlaps the annotation somewhat, and nothing is said about behavior when the plan_id is invalid, which keeps it 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 clauses, front-loaded with what is deleted, then the entitlement gate, then the safety warning. No filler and no repetition of 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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the scope of deletion, the prerequisite, and the irreversibility. Only the failure mode (nonexistent or already-deleted plan) is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 plan_id's schema text already points to list_meal_plans and create_ai_meal_plan for the id source, so the description has nothing to add. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 (delete) plus resource (meal plan) and adds the crucial scope detail that every meal in the plan is also removed, which distinguishes it from remove_recipe_from_meal_plan and other removal siblings. An agent can tell exactly what gets deleted without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'requires Subscriber' sets a precondition and 'only do this when the human asked for it' sets an authorization bar for the agent. It stops short of naming the alternative for partial removal (remove_recipe_from_meal_plan), so it is not fully exhaustive.

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