Prepare a meal intention

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds value by using 'stage', signalling a two-step prepare/confirm pattern rather than an immediate write. It stops short of stating what gets created, what happens if left unconfirmed, or whether repeated calls stack up duplicate intentions.

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?

One short sentence with no padded preamble, which is good. But it is compressed to the point of ambiguity: 'stage planning' and 'optional time' would each benefit from a clarifying clause, so brevity here costs clarity rather than earning its place.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema and only default annotations, the description omits the key things an agent needs: where recipe_id comes from, that the staged action must be finalized with confirm_action, and what a successful stage returns. The scope note ('built-in') is helpful but insufficient.

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 carry the load. It explains 'serving count' and 'optional time', loosely covering servings and scheduled_for, but says nothing about recipe_id — where it comes from, its format, or that it must reference a built-in recipe. Constraints such as the 0.25–24 serving range and the 40-char time format are undocumented.

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 names a verb ('stage planning') and a resource ('built-in ReceiptCal recipe'), which is more than a restatement of the title. However, 'stage planning' is awkward phrasing that doesn't clearly map to the meal-intention concept in the tool name, and it doesn't distinguish this from siblings like prepare_create_meal_plan or prepare_prepare_meal.

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 word 'built-in' hints at a scope constraint (only catalog recipes, not user-created ones), which is the only usage signal present. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of the confirm_action follow-up needed to commit a staged action, and no comparison to competing siblings such as prepare_create_meal_plan.

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