Unplan Recipe

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly signals a mutation (removal) and the auth prerequisite, but says nothing about what happens when the recipe isn't in the plan, whether the removal is reversible, or failure behavior — notable gaps for an unannotated 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?

Two short sentences, the core action stated first and the prerequisite second. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the auth prerequisite plus day format are covered. The one shortfall is missing edge-case behavior (recipe not planned, idempotency) for an unannotated mutation.

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 100%, so both parameters (day as YYYY-MM-DD, recipe_id from get_week_plan) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (remove) plus resource (recipe from Cookidoo week plan) and scopes it to a given day, immediately distinguishing it from the sibling plan_recipe. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

It states a clear prerequisite — you must call connect_to_cookidoo first — which is genuinely actionable sequencing guidance. It does not explicitly name the inverse/alternative (plan_recipe) or when-not-to-use conditions, keeping it just short of a 5.

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