Delete meal plan

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the delete is permanent or soft, whether child entries cascade, or what happens when the ID does not exist.

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?

Five words, front-loaded with the verb and free of boilerplate. It is tight rather than padded; the shortfall is under-specification, not verbosity.

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 destructive mutation the definition is thin: one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and no statement of consequences or error behavior. The annotations cover the read/write and idempotency signals, but an agent still lacks the information needed to call this safely in a multi-step workflow.

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%, so the description must carry the meaning of the single required parameter — and it offers only the redundant phrase "by ID". It never clarifies that the ID must reference an existing meal plan, nor does it address the number type the schema declares.

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 ("Delete meal plan") plus the lookup key ("by ID"), which cleanly separates it from get_meal_plan and update_meal_plan in the sibling list. It lacks any qualification of scope (soft vs. permanent delete) but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus update_meal_plan or get_meal_plan, and no preconditions such as needing a prior get_meal_plan lookup to obtain the ID. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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