delete_meal_plan_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It states the action but does not mention permanence, side effects, permission requirements, or behavior on invalid IDs, leaving the irreversibility of the operation ambiguous.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the action stated in the first sentence. The additional Args line provides necessary parameter context without any redundant words.

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 single-parameter delete operation with an output schema present, the description covers the core identification requirement. However, given the absence of annotations, it lacks information about the destructive nature and post-conditions, making it barely adequate.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains that entry_id is a meal plan entry ID and reveals its origin from get_meal_plans, which adds significant clarity beyond the raw string type.

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 the specific verb 'Remove' with the resource 'meal plan entry', clearly indicating the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming the target resource type, which is unique among the delete-type tools.

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 provides a practical pointer that entry_id comes from get_meal_plans, implying the intended workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like delete_recipe or delete_shopping_list, leaving selection to inference.

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