Prepare meal component correction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation baseline is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it is a complete replacement over every component and is revision-guarded, implying stale-revision rejection and full-list semantics. It stops short of saying what happens on a revision mismatch, whether a pending action must be confirmed, or what is returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the staging action and scope immediately, with zero filler. It is dense to the point of jargon ('revision-aware correction'), but nothing is wasted.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves critical operational facts unstated: the required confirm_action handoff, stale-revision behavior, the all-or-nothing replacement semantics, and the 1-50 component bounds. An agent cannot safely invoke this on the description alone.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry weight. It does map reasonably to the three parameters: 'one saved meal' -> meal_id, 'revision-aware' -> revision, 'every component amount and included state' -> the components items. However it omits that revision must equal the current server revision and that the components array replaces the full set rather than patching individual entries.

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?

States a specific verb ('Stage ... correction') and resource ('every component amount and included state for one saved meal'), so the operation and its scope are unambiguous. It is distinguishable from the many other prepare_* siblings by naming the exact fields it touches, though it never names a sibling alternative outright.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus prepare_prepare_meal, prepare_create_meal_plan, or list_meals, and no mention of the staging/confirm_action/cancel_action flow implied by the prepare_ prefix. The word 'revision-aware' hints at a prerequisite but never states when or why it applies.

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