sign_off_meal

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. Although it states that the action is cancelling a meal, it does not disclose consequences such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens if the meal is not currently ordered. This is sparse for a destructive mutation tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, and the second sentence adds a useful constraint that the schema does not enumerate. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It leaves out date_str format, subdomain semantics, and any postcondition or return behavior, leaving an agent to guess at critical 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It provides allowed values for meal_type, but date_str format is not explained and subdomain is never mentioned. The added value covers only one of three parameters and is incomplete.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel an ordered meal for a date.' It also narrows meal_type to the valid options, which helps distinguish this from sibling tools like choose_meal, get_meals, and rate_meal.

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 implies when to use the tool—when an ordered meal needs to be cancelled—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools or state prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is clear but left to inference.

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