add_leftover_meal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the duplication behavior, the plan_leftover=true flag, optional date/section movement, and that it returns the new event. It does not mention potential side effects like validation failures or permissions, but core behavior is well covered.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the behavioral details follow logically, and the return value is stated. Every sentence earns its place; the text is easily parsed and avoids redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the primary behavior, the return, and the optional parameters' semantics. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites beyond 'previously planned recipe event,' but that is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in most scenarios. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit 'Returns the new event' statement.

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 schema covers date and section with descriptions (67% coverage). The description adds meaning for source_event_id by identifying it as the 'source event' from which the leftover is derived. It also clarifies that date and section default to the source event's values, enriching the schema's own descriptions. This goes beyond mere restatement and helps the agent understand parameter intent.

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 tool's purpose: schedule a leftover meal derived from a planned recipe event. It explains the mechanism (duplicates source event with plan_leftover=true) and distinguishes it from generic duplication by focusing on the leftover flag and optional date/section changes. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that leaves no 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 (creating a leftover from a planned event) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like duplicate_planner_event or move_planner_event. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario from the tool's name and description.

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