plan_week_meals

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: existing slots are skipped and reported, never overwritten, plus the dryRun preview pattern and the subscription gate. That conflict-handling semantics is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from destructiveHint=false alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and prerequisite, then a compact paragraph on entry shape and conflict behavior, then a scannable parameter list. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, conflict behavior, dry-run previewing, side effects (grocery list push), and reporting of skipped slots. An agent could call this correctly and predict its effects without further information.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% for dryRun and addRecipesToGroceryList, and the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's meaning and default. It also clarifies the meals entry shape and the summary-vs-recipeId choice, adding semantics the schema alone would leave ambiguous.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Schedule several meals in one call') and makes the batch scope explicit, which is the key differentiator from any single-slot alternative. An agent knows exactly what this tool does and at what granularity without opening the schema.

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?

It gives concrete usage direction: 'Use dryRun first to see what would change' and states the Plus subscription prerequisite. It doesn't name alternatives because no sibling meal tool exists, but it also doesn't state when *not* to use it (e.g., single meal vs. batch).

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