Delete Meal Plan Entry

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is an irreversible write. The description earns credit for scoping the blast radius (the recipe is not deleted), but it omits whether the call is idempotent, what happens when entry_id does not exist, and whether confirmation is expected.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the destructive scope statement is front-loaded before the reassurance about the recipe. Nothing needs to be re-read or inferred from padding.

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?

With one fully described parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, this is close to complete: the agent knows what is removed and what is preserved. The only real gap is failure/edge-case behavior when the entry does not exist.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where to obtain the value ("from list_meal_plans"), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ("Remove one entry from the meal plan") and adds the key disambiguation that the underlying recipe survives. It implicitly separates itself from the create_meal_plan_entry sibling, though it never names it or any other alternative.

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 and the object being an entry; there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus create_meal_plan_entry or get_meal_plan_for_date, and no prerequisites or preconditions (e.g., needing a valid entry_id from a listing call) are spelled out.

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