Add to the meal plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a creation action that does not destroy data. The description adds the mutual exclusivity constraint (recipe vs. title), which is helpful beyond annotations. It does not, however, clarify whether an existing entry for the same date/type gets overwritten or rejected, leaving a behavioral gap.

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 at two sentences, immediately stating the action and the critical constraint. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or filler. This is a model of efficient documentation.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description does an acceptable job of covering the core logic. However, it lacks guidance on whether entries can be duplicated for the same meal slot, what the return value looks like, or any prerequisites (e.g., does the recipe need to exist?). This leaves room for confusion in edge cases.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusion rule (recipe vs. title) and that a plan entry is one or the other, which provides context not in the raw schema. However, it does not elaborate on specific formatting or relationships beyond that.

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 that it places a recipe or free-text note onto a meal plan for a specific day. It uses a specific verb ("puts") and resource ("meal plan"), and the constraint "one or the other" distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_mealplan_entry and delete_mealplan_entry.

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 states the core rule of using 'recipe' or 'title' but not both, which is essential guidance. It does not, however, mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like batch operations or creating a full plan via list_mealplans, which slightly reduces the score.

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