Meal Plan Add Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates the additive nature of the operation but does not disclose behavior on conflicts, whether the recipe must already exist, permission requirements, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 deliver the action and the core input constraint without unnecessary words. The essential information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool, the description plus full schema coverage is adequate for basic invocation. However, with no annotations and minimal behavioral context, edge cases such as validation failures, duplicate entries, or return values are left unexplained; output schema may cover returns, but the tool description itself is incomplete on its own.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a clear definition. The description adds one useful semantic detail—that recipe and note can be combined—but provides minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and a specific resource ('entry to the meal plan'), and further clarifies that an entry can be a recipe, a free-text note, or both. This clearly differentiates it from sibling meal plan tools like list, remove, and summary tools.

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 gives input-mode guidance ('Either specify a recipe or a free-text note (or both)') but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly articulated.

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