Remove Fitatu Meal Items

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: atomicity ('Atomically removes'), failure semantics ('If any requested active item is missing... nothing is synchronized'), and a defined success condition ('Returns { status: 'confirmed' ... } after every selected item is absent'). 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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by input sourcing instructions, then atomic behavior and return shape. Every sentence carries essential information.

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 operation with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, where to obtain the required IDs, what not to pass, atomic rollback behavior, and the confirmed return payload. The output schema handles return structure; no critical calling information 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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions already explain date, items, the source of mealKey/itemId pairs, and the rejection of productId/recipeId. The description restates those points but adds little new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Atomically removes and confirms exact Fitatu day-plan entries of any food type.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings (add, update, replace, move) by focusing on removal, and even clarifies the input form ('mealKey and itemId pair').

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?

Provides explicit operational guidance: 'Copy each mealKey and itemId pair from get_day_plan_items; do not pass productId or recipeId.' This names the source read tool and a negative constraint. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative mutation tools like update_meal_item or replace_meal_item, but the action is clear enough that selection is straightforward.

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