skylight_generate_meal_plan

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals that the tool is asynchronous, that it only creates drafts rather than final meals, and that polling and approval are required. This is valuable transparency, though it does not cover side effects such as whether grocery list items are created immediately.

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 with a parenthetical that packs in the key workflow information. Every part earns its place, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description still provides enough for an agent to understand the async draft/approval flow and the next tool to call. It is slightly incomplete in not describing what the immediate response will contain, but the polling step mitigates that gap.

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 67%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The required parameters are documented in the schema, but the description does not compensate for undocumented parameters like frameId or add_to_grocery_list.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate'), a resource ('AI meal plan for the given dates'), and a concrete result ('creates draft meal sittings'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related sibling skylight_plan_meal.

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 an explicit follow-up workflow: the operation is async, the agent should poll skylight_get_auto_creation_intent, and then approve. This is strong context, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like skylight_plan_meal.

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