mealie_delete_mealplan

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 adds the context of 'explicit confirmation', suggesting that the tool expects a user confirmation to proceed, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens if confirmation is not given, whether deletion is permanent, or any permission requirements, leaving significant gaps.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 that this is a delete tool with a safety confirmation parameter and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of confirmed_by_user or the likely failure mode when confirmation is not provided. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the burden for return-value explanation, and the tool's simplicity keeps the overall completeness at a minimum viable level.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. The description mentions 'explicit confirmation' which hints at the confirmed_by_user parameter, but it does not explain item_id or the exact semantics of confirmed_by_user (e.g., must be true to delete). Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.

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 action ('Delete') and the target resource ('a mealplan entry'), using a specific verb and object. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mealie_delete_shopping_item by specifying 'mealplan entry'. The addition of 'after explicit confirmation' also hints at a safety requirement, making the purpose even clearer.

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 phrase 'after explicit confirmation' implies a prerequisite (user must confirm before deletion), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides minimal context on usage conditions, but no clear guidance on alternatives like mealie_update_mealplan or mealie_create_mealplan.

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