skylight_delete_meal

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

The annotation already flags destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavior beyond that: 'There is no undo', 'without confirm:true this returns a dry-run preview... and makes NO network call', and 'with confirm:true it deletes'. This is valuable safety guidance that the annotation alone does not convey, fully disclosing the tool's side effects and safety mechanism.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose, the three recurrence modes, and the critical safety behavior without wasted words. The most important information (destructive + confirm mechanism) is front-loaded, and every clause 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 destructive operation with a safety dry-run, the description covers the key aspects: what it deletes, the three scopes, the confirm requirement, the no-undo caveat, and the network-call behavior. With no output schema, the description adequately explains the preview output. Nothing essential for an agent to call it correctly is 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 80% — four of five parameters have descriptions (frameId lacks one). The description repeats the apply_to semantics already present in the schema and reiterates the confirm requirement, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the description carries no additional parameter insight, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'Remove a planned meal (meal sitting) from the meal plan' — and goes on to explain the three recurrence modes via apply_to. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like skylight_update_meal or skylight_delete_recipe, and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explains when to use each apply_to mode and the confirm/dry-run safety flow, giving the agent concrete behavioral context. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but no sibling performs this exact action, so the guidance is sufficient. A 5 would require explicit 'use this instead of X' statements, which are unnecessary here.

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