update_meal_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'update' operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permission requirements, whether updates are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with two short sentences that are front-loaded: it immediately states the purpose and key parameter information. There is no wasted text, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential details efficiently.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 7 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, and expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies data, this level of detail is inadequate to ensure correct agent usage without additional context.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema: it clarifies that 'id' is required and other fields are optional, which is already implied by the schema's required array and optional properties. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining parameter meanings (e.g., what 'meal_type_id' represents or date formats). Baseline is 3 due to low coverage but no real compensation.

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 verb 'update' and resource 'meal plan', which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'auto_meal_plan' or 'create_meal_plan', nor does it specify what aspects of a meal plan can be updated beyond the parameter list. The purpose is clear 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 'create_meal_plan' or 'delete_meal_plan'. It mentions that 'id' is required and other fields are optional, which is basic parameter guidance but doesn't help an agent decide when this tool is appropriate in context. No explicit when/when-not or alternative usage is stated.

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