Create meal plan

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so safety is partly covered. But the description adds nothing beyond a parameter list and never explains the notable side effect implied by 'addshopping' (adding ingredients to a shopping list) or whether a meal plan can span multiple days via to_date. For a mutation tool this leaves real behavioral questions unanswered.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and structured as required-then-optional, so there is no wasted wording. The brevity is under-specification rather than tight editing, though, and the required/optional enumeration duplicates the schema's own required array.

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?

With 8 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and a side-effecting write operation, the definition should do far more than list names. It neither covers to_date nor explains return behavior, so an agent cannot confidently call it for anything but the simplest case.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the meaning and it only partly does. It does add a useful format hint for from_date '(ISO)', but it never explains servings (per person? per plan?), what addshopping actually triggers, what happens when recipe_id is omitted, and it omits the to_date parameter entirely even though it exists in the schema.

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 opens with the specific verb+resource 'Create meal plan', which cleanly separates it from the sibling update_meal_plan, delete_meal_plan and get_meal_plan. It does not, however, state what a meal plan is scoped to (current space, user) or contrast itself with any alternative.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when a caller should create a plan versus updating one, nor any prerequisite such as the meal_type_id or recipe_id having to exist first. The only 'guidance' is the required/optional parameter split, which the schema already encodes.

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