add_recipe_to_meal_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the required date format and the custom-recipe flag, which adds useful context. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether an existing entry is overwritten), prerequisites (e.g., recipe existence), or error conditions, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence serves a clear purpose: stating the operation and adding the custom-recipe conditional. No redundant information or repetition of schema fields.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what it does, the target resource, the date requirement, and the special flag condition. It leaves out minor details like error behavior or duplicate handling, but these are not critical for a straightforward insertion tool.

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 compensate for missing parameter meanings. It explicitly explains the day format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the meaning of is_custom. However, recipe_id is not described beyond its name, though its purpose is partially inferable from the tool's context. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 uses the verb 'Plant' (schedule) with a specific resource 'Rezept' and 'Wochenplan' (weekly plan), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_recipe_to_shopping_list or get_meal_plan. It also specifies the date format and the is_custom flag, making the action 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?

The description implies usage context by stating the action (scheduling a recipe in the weekly plan) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The note about setting is_custom=true for custom recipes offers a conditional usage hint, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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