Remove a meal plan entry

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds significant behavioral detail: the tool is nondestructive to the associated recipe and requires a two-step confirmation with a token. These non-obvious traits are essential for correct invocation and go well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, non-destructive scope, and confirmation protocol. It is front-loaded with the core action and completely free of unnecessary words.

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 simple destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, the key side-effect (recipe untouched), and the non-trivial two-step process. It lacks notes on token expiration, error conditions, or permission requirements, but the provided context is sufficient for basic agent usage.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well-described (entry_id and confirm_token have detailed schema descriptions). The tool description reinforces the two-step pattern but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting baseline expectations.

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 'Removes one entry from the meal plan' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from deleting the recipe by noting 'The recipe itself is not touched', effectively differentiating from sibling tools like delete_recipe.

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 explains the two-step confirmation process ('call once to receive a token, then again with that token'), providing critical usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_mealplan_entry or create_mealplan_entry, nor does it list exclusion cases.

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