create_meal_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create meal plan' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. The description is minimal and lacks essential behavioral context.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that efficiently state the purpose and parameter requirements. It's front-loaded with the core function. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a meal plan is in this context, what the creation process entails, what happens after creation, or how this differs from auto_meal_plan. The description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 8 parameters, the description must compensate but only partially does so. It mentions 'Required: from_date (ISO), meal_type_id, servings. Optional: recipe_id, title, note, addshopping' - this identifies required vs optional parameters and provides format hint for from_date, but doesn't explain what meal_type_id represents, what 'addshopping' does, or the purpose of to_date (which isn't mentioned in the description at all). The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 states the tool creates a meal plan, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'auto_meal_plan' or explain what distinguishes creation from other meal plan operations. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 like 'auto_meal_plan' or 'update_meal_plan'. It lists required and optional parameters but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites for creating a meal plan. No explicit when/when-not instructions are present.

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