mess_skip_meal

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the financial implication ('still charged') and the prerequisite condition ('out of free cancellations'). While annotations cover idempotency and non-destructive nature, the description provides practical usage context that helps the agent understand when and why to use this tool.

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?

The description is efficiently structured with purpose first, usage guidance second, and technical details last. Each sentence earns its place, though the parameter listing could be more concise since it duplicates schema information without adding value.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (state-changing operation with financial implications), the description provides good context about when to use it and what it does. With annotations covering safety aspects and an output schema existing, the description focuses appropriately on usage guidance rather than repeating structured data.

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?

The description provides a parameter list but adds no meaningful semantics beyond what's already in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter relationships or usage patterns, but it merely lists names without context. The schema already documents each parameter thoroughly with descriptions and titles.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Mark a registration as skipped or unskipped') and resource ('MealRegistration'), distinguishing it from siblings like mess_cancel_registration by explaining skipping vs cancellation (user still charged). It provides a precise verb+resource+scope combination.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use when out of free cancellations') and distinguishes it from cancellation by explaining 'Skipping = user likely won't attend but is still charged.' This provides clear context for choosing between skip and cancel operations among sibling tools.

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