Delete Households Mealplans Ical

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 says the feed is "disabled" but does not explain whether this is permanent or reversible, whether existing feed URLs stop working, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity leaves important usage and behavior details unstated.

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 disable/delete-style mutation with no annotations, the description is too thin. Although an output schema exists so return values need not be explained, the description omits permissions, reversibility, scope of effect, and when to use this versus related iCal feed operations.

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?

There is one optional parameter (accept-language) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The parameter is a common optional header, which limits the practical harm, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 ("Disables") and resource ("meal plan iCal feed"), which clearly differentiates it from sibling list/create/get iCal feed tools. The slight ambiguity between "delete" and "disable" is minor but keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "Disables" — an agent can infer this is the tool to call when disabling an iCal feed. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not reference the list/create/get iCal feed siblings as alternatives.

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