update_week_plan_day

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses the destructive nature (full replacement, discarding previous entries), the return format { date, list }, and the clearing capability. It lacks details on authorization, error handling, or rate limits, but covers the main behavioral traits.

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 concise at four sentences, each adding value: main action, list behavior, clearing, return format, and alternatives. No superfluous content, and it is well-structured with front-loaded purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the operation, its effect, return value, and conditional parameters. It could mention error cases or validation, but for a tool of this complexity, it is fairly complete.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that list is a full replacement, how to clear the day, and the conditional requirement for listId. This enhances the agent's understanding of parameter usage.

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 verb 'Replace' and the resource 'meal-plan entries for one day', and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_week_plan and get_recipe by explicitly mentioning when to use them instead.

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 provides explicit guidance on the list parameter (full replacement, empty array to clear) and mentions alternative tools for reading. It also notes conditional behavior for listId (optional in stdio, required in HTTP). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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