create_mealplan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a side effect (saving to a file) and states the return value. However, it omits details like file format, overwrite behavior, required permissions, or error handling. The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating the core action, followed by an Args section and Returns section. The structure is logical and scannable. No redundant or unnecessary sentences.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, file I/O), the description is missing details such as the file path/location, supported file format, and whether existing files are overwritten or appended. The return value is described, but there is no mention of validation, error states, or prerequisites. The description is functional but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0% (per context), so the description must compensate. It lists the key fields of the meal_plan object (date, meal_type, title, cook, dishes), adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain nested structures (e.g., dishes are objects with their own fields) or data formats (e.g., date format). The schema's $defs partially fill the gap, but the description's contribution is moderate.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a meal plan entry') and the outcome ('save it to a file'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like store_dish (which stores a dish) and list_mealplans_by_date_range (which lists), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that dishes should be stored first via store_dish before creating a meal plan, or that this tool is for a single entry vs. batch operations. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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