generate_meal_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect of auto-writing to SQLite, which is important, but does not mention overwrite behavior, prerequisites, or other potential impacts. It adds some context but not comprehensive transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and includes key output details and the persistence side effect. Every word contributes value, with no waste.

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 the output schema exists and the schema covers all parameters, the description adequately covers the core operation and the key side effect (SQLite write). It does not explain conflict handling or whether it requires existing patient data, but these are minor gaps given the available structured metadata.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters having descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the tool generates a one-day five-meal executable meal plan with grams, meal times, and alternatives, and automatically writes to SQLite. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and the auto-write detail distinguishes it from sibling save_meal_plan.

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 usage (generating a meal plan with details and persisting it) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_meal_plan or compute_nutrition_targets. No exclusions are stated, but the context is clear enough.

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