Change a meal plan entry

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

Annotations show `readOnlyHint: false` and `destructiveHint: false`, which are consistent with a mutation tool that does not destroy data. The description adds that moves and recipe replacements happen, but it does not disclose whether partial updates are allowed (e.g., only changing the date without a recipe), what happens to omitted parameters, or if permissions or preconditions are required. Given annotations cover mutation safety, the description adds moderate value.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently captures the two main use cases. It could mention additional edit capabilities (like changing text/title) without becoming wordy, but it is not overly verbose. It is front-loaded and concise.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters with moderate schema coverage and no output schema. The description provides a functional overview but omits that other fields (e.g., `text`, `title`) can be modified independently. For a mutation tool, it could also note what the response looks like or whether the entry must already exist. It meets baseline adequacy but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 50%, meaning two parameters (`recipe` and `entry_id`) have descriptions. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters, but the schema provides decent coverage for those two. The description hints at the purpose of `date` and `entry_type` (move to another day or slot) and `recipe` (replace the recipe). The tool has 6 parameters, and the description context helps disambiguate some of them, earning above baseline.

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 modifies an existing meal plan entry by moving it to another day/slot or replacing the recipe. It distinguishes itself from `create_mealplan_entry` (creation) and `delete_mealplan_entry` (deletion). However, it does not mention that other properties like `text` or `title` can also be updated, so it slightly constrains the perceived scope.

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 gives a basic idea of when to use the tool (to move or swap a recipe), but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it. For instance, it could note that `delete_mealplan_entry` should be used to remove an entry entirely, or that `create_mealplan_entry` adds a new one. No alternatives are named directly.

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