select_meals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool allows selection of multiple recipes, but doesn't disclose if this is a write operation (likely, given 'Choose'), what permissions are required, whether selections are final or editable, error conditions (e.g., invalid recipe_id), or side effects (e.g., updating a delivery schedule). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded in a single, efficient sentence. It conveys the core purpose without waste, and every word earns its place by specifying the action ('Choose'), target ('specific meals'), context ('upcoming delivery week'), and method ('select multiple recipes by their IDs').

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 as a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as behavioral traits (e.g., whether it's idempotent, requires authentication), error handling, or what happens post-selection (e.g., confirmation, delivery updates). For a tool that modifies delivery meals, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (week_id, meals with recipe_id and servings). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'meals' refers to recipes by IDs, which is already covered. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Choose') and resource ('specific meals for an upcoming delivery week'), and mentions selecting multiple recipes by IDs. It distinguishes from read-only siblings like get_menu or get_recipe_details by implying a selection action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from modify_delivery or skip_week which also affect deliveries.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid week_id from get_delivery_schedule), exclusions (e.g., cannot use after cutoff time), or compare to siblings like modify_delivery (which might adjust existing selections) or skip_week (which avoids delivery entirely). Usage is implied but not explicit.

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