create_meal_plan

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining atomic all-or-nothing behavior, retry semantics, the need for user confirmation, failure on unknown IDs, and the idempotency_conflict outcome. These are meaningful behavioral details that an agent cannot infer from the input schema or the generic annotation flags.

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?

Three tight sentences deliver the essential behavior, retry rule, confirmation requirement, and failure semantics with no filler. The most important phrase 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 create operation with an output schema available, the description covers the critical success/failure behavior, idempotency rules, and user-confirmation prerequisite. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly appears to be missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so well for idempotency_key by explaining exact reuse semantics and conflict behavior, and for recipe_ids by noting that unknown IDs fail the entire plan. plan_name is left implicit, but its meaning is self-evident from the title and default value.

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 opens with 'Atomically save a complete plan,' which clearly states the verb (save), the resource (a complete meal plan), and a defining behavioral property (atomicity). This separates it from the read/search siblings like get_meal_plan or search_recipes. The wording is specific and not a tautology.

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 clear operational context: it must be used to save an entire plan, requires user confirmation, and enforces idempotency on retries. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_meal_plan or generate_shopping_list, but the save-versus-read/generate distinction is strongly implied by the tool name and description.

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