save_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 that this is a persistent write operation to SQLite and specifies the expected input format, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., overwriting an existing plan for a patient), required permissions, or error behavior. This is moderate disclosure but lacks depth.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the purpose, the destination, and the data source with no extraneous information. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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 two-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential flow (what gets written and where). However, it omits behavior on conflicts (e.g., duplicate patient_id), which is relevant for a persistence operation. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains plan_json as the original output of generate_meal_plan, which adds essential meaning. However, patient_id is left undocumented beyond its name, leaving the agent to infer its role. Partial compensation, not complete.

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 action: writing a meal plan JSON string to SQLite. It identifies the specific source of the plan_json (raw output from generate_meal_plan), which distinguishes it from siblings like generate_meal_plan (which creates) and list_meal_plans (which reads).

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 after calling generate_meal_plan by specifying that plan_json comes from its raw output. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_meal_plans to retrieve saved plans').

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