uncancel_meal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('uncancel') but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens if the meal wasn't cancelled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and context, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on success/failure outcomes, error conditions, or side effects (e.g., billing implications). Given the complexity of reversing a cancellation, more context is needed.

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 adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (100% coverage). It doesn't explain the meaning of 'meal_date' or 'meal_type' in context, though the schema adequately documents format and enum values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('uncancel') and resource ('meal registration'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'cancel_meal' (reverse operation) and 'register_meal' (initial registration). It precisely conveys reversing a cancellation without ambiguity.

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 implies usage context ('previously cancelled meal registration') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'register_meal' for new registrations or 'skip_meal' for future adjustments. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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