create_tandoor_meal_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Add one or more recipes' without mentioning any potential side effects, error conditions (e.g., invalid meal type, duplicate entries), or whether the operation overwrites existing entries. This is a significant gap for a 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase is relevant to the tool's core action and constraints.

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 add operation with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose. However, given there are no annotations, it would benefit from noting prerequisites (e.g., meal type must exist) or expected behavior, but these gaps are partially covered by the schema. The description is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 descriptions for all six parameters. The tool description adds only that it adds 'one or more recipes' for a 'specific date and meal type', which slightly reinforces the recipes array and start_date/meal_type parameters, but does not add meaningful syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and clearly identifies the resource ('recipes to the Tandoor meal plan') with the key constraints of date and meal type. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_meal_plans' (read) and 'create_tandoor_recipe' (add recipe).

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 context is clear: use this when you need to add recipes to a meal plan for a specific date and meal type. It implies a write operation, distinct from read-only siblings. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the purpose is specific enough.

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