skylight_plan_meal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies side effects like scheduling a meal and optionally mutating the grocery list, but it does not state whether this creates a new record, whether existing meals are overwritten, what permissions are required, or what the response contains.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and the three optional capabilities in a compact form that is easy for an agent to parse.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not mention return values, the requirement that summary must be blank when meal_recipe_id is set, how category IDs are obtained, or the purpose of several parameters. The schema helps, but the overall tool context remains incomplete.

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 60%, and the description adds some parameter-level meaning by clarifying that repeating maps to rrule, linking a recipe maps to meal_recipe_id, and grocery list mapping to add_to_grocery_list. However, it does not compensate for undocumented parameters such as note, frameId, saveToRecipeBox, and add_to_grocery_list, and the schema already documents the most complex parameter (summary).

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 uses a specific verb 'Plan a meal on a date' and identifies the resource and core optional behaviors (repeating, linking a recipe, adding to grocery list). It is clear enough to distinguish from meal-related siblings like skylight_update_meal or skylight_list_meals, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from skylight_generate_meal_plan.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It states what the tool can do but gives no exclusions, no recommended contexts, and no comparisons to related tools such as skylight_generate_meal_plan or skylight_create_recipe.

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