Select this week's recipes

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it mutates state ('Moves the week to 'selected''), returns the shopping list, and explains the fallback selection algorithm with tie-breaking. It does not mention idempotence or whether prior selections are overwritten, but annotations already establish that this is not read-only.

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, front-loaded with the core intent, and every phrase adds information. No filler, no repetition of schema or title.

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?

The description gives the key workflow, automatic selection rule, state transition, and return value, which is solid. However, the meaning of week_id is missing and the recipes_per_week reference is ambiguous, leaving a noticeable gap for a tool that mutates state. The output schema likely covers the shopping list return shape.

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 explain the parameters. It explains recipe_ids ('With no recipe_ids, picks the top N') but completely omits week_id, which is one of the two parameters. The reference to recipes_per_week is also unexplained and is not an input parameter.

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 action ('Lock in the winners'), the resource (this week's recipes), and the outcome ('Moves the week to 'selected''). It clearly separates this finalization tool from sibling proposal/voting tools by describing the automatic top-N selection and tie-breaking behavior.

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 implies this is used after voting to finalize the week, and explains the difference between passing recipe_ids and letting the tool auto-select. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so an agent must infer the context from sibling names.

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