generate_meal_plan

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'persist' but does not clarify whether an existing plan is overwritten, if the plan is idempotent, or what 'deterministic' means operationally. Critical side effects and data flow are missing.

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 only two sentences and front-loaded, which is concise. However, it sacrifices substance for brevity; every sentence should add value but the second sentence is under-serving.

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 seven parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It lacks explanation of how the meal plan relates to the profile, budget constraints, or deterministic behavior, leaving the agent without essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no parameter information. The agent cannot infer the meaning of profile_id, budget_eur, servings, or other parameters from the description alone, making invocation error-prone.

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 clearly states the tool generates and persists a meal plan. 'Generate and persist' are specific verbs, and 'deterministic' adds nuance. However, it could better distinguish from siblings like regenerate_plan by explaining how a new plan creation differs from regeneration.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_meal_plan, regenerate_plan, or swap_meal. The agent has no context to decide which tool is appropriate for a given task.

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