manage_skipping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses several non-obvious traits: it can un-skip, it notifies the kitchen, it has a time window, and api_key has an environment-variable fallback. It does not dwell on permission requirements or exact failure behavior, but for a small mutation tool this is reasonable coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action before the rationale and constraints. Every sentence contributes something: the purpose, the why, the deadline, and parameter semantics. No filler or repetition.

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 description covers all required parameters, the optional parameters, the timing constraint, and the auth behavior. Since an output schema exists, return values do not need elaboration. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly addressing sibling-tool selection, but nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 does so thoroughly: meal_date gets a YYYY-MM-DD format, meal_type lists all valid values, meal_mess explains the mess context, skipping explains true/false semantics, and api_key documents the environment fallback. This is exactly the kind of value-add the description should provide.

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: 'Mark a registered meal as skipped (or un-skipped).' This identifies the specific verb and resource. It is not a tautology and provides a concrete distinction from generic meal tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cancel_meal or uncancel_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 gives contextual constraints: the meal must be registered, notification reduces waste, and the action must occur before the skip window. It does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when to choose manage_skipping over cancel_meal/uncancel_meal, which are likely overlapping sibling tools.

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