Create Households Mealplans Ical

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key side effect: an existing token is replaced and prior feed URLs stop working, which is effectively a destructive rotation. It omits permission requirements and whether a fresh token is returned for the caller to distribute.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the consequence. 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?

An output schema exists, so the returned token needn't be described, and the mutation's risk is covered. The remaining gap is guidance on follow-up use of the new feed URL/token and any auth prerequisites, which the description leaves implicit.

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% for the single optional 'accept-language' parameter, and the description says nothing about it. Because the lone parameter is a standard content-negotiation header with no required inputs, the gap is minor rather than severe.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('enables the meal plan iCal feed') and adds the discriminating detail that it replaces any existing token, which separates it from the sibling list_/get_/delete_ iCal tools without naming them.

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 enabling action and its token-rotation effect imply when to call it, but the description never names an alternative (delete_households_mealplans_ical, list_households_mealplans_ical, get_households_mealplans_ical_by_token) or states a when-not condition.

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