Prepare a planned meal

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

Annotations already declare this non-readonly, non-idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds the important fact that pantry inventory is debited. It still omits what 'staging' produces, whether the deduction is reversible, and why the non-idempotent hint matters (i.e., that repeated calls would deduct again).

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, front-loaded with the action before the side effect. Nothing is padded, though the phrasing 'Stage preparing a meal intention' is slightly awkward.

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 mutating, non-idempotent tool with no output schema and 0% documented parameters, the description leaves too much unstated: what the call returns, whether the intention's state changes, and how to recover from an accidental double deduction.

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% for two parameters. The description never explains meal_intention_id (a UUID referencing a planned intention) or what servings_prepared does, even though it implies ingredient scaling. With no schema text to lean on, the description should have carried this burden and does not.

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 resource (a meal intention) and a concrete side effect (deducting recipe ingredients from virtual pantry inventory), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, the key verb 'stage' is left undefined, and with siblings like prepare_consume_meal and prepare_create_meal_intention in the same family, an agent cannot tell from the text when staging differs from consuming or creating.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The closest sibling, prepare_consume_meal, is never referenced, so the agent must guess whether this precedes consumption or replaces it.

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