add_recipes_to_meal_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the updated day is returned after confirmation, that dry_run validates/previews changes without sending, and that ID source handling is automatic (auto mixed support). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema provides, though it doesn't mention auth requirements, failure modes, or partial-add behavior on invalid IDs.

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 three short sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, formatting/options, and result behavior. Zero redundancy, front-loaded with the core purpose. Very efficient for the information conveyed.

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 tool has 4 params (2 required), an output schema, and 1 enum. The description covers the multi-ID input format, source auto-detection, and the returned day. It doesn't elaborate on return format beyond 'updated day', but given an output schema exists, that burden is covered. The description is complete for a moderate-complexity mutation tool, though it could benefit from noting error behavior on invalid IDs.

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%, so the schema documents parameters fully. The description adds value by explaining the mixed ID format (official numeric vs custom ULID), the exact separator behavior (commas, spaces, newlines), and the auto-detection behavior of recipe_source — details not in the schema. It contributes extra nuance on the recipe_ids and recipe_source parameters beyond the basic schema definitions.

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 verb (Add) and resource (recipes to a Cookidoo meal-plan day), with a specific scope (one or more recipes). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like remove_recipe_from_meal_plan and move_recipe_in_meal_plan by its action (add) targeting meal-plan days. The use of 'meal-plan day' is specific and precise.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to add recipes to a meal plan) and specifies input formatting (mixed IDs, separators). It doesn't explicitly call out when NOT to use it versus alternatives like copy_recipe_to_custom or move_recipe_in_meal_plan, but the sibling set makes the purpose distinct enough. The recipe_source explanation helps clarify when to use auto vs explicit source selection.

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