move_recipe_in_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 does well by revealing the two-step transaction order and the rollback guarantee on partial failure, which is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs. It could add details on idempotency or prerequisites (e.g., must be connected to Cookidoo), but the core mutation semantics are clearly disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded purpose, with no wasted words. The ordering guarantee and rollback behavior each earn their place in the second and third sentences. It's an example of efficient, high-density writing.

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 is complete given an output schema exists (so return values need no elaboration) and all 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The tool involves compound state-changing behavior (add + remove + rollback), which the description fully covers. A small gap: no mention of connection prerequisites or confirmation semantics for the dry_run mode, but the tool's complexity is well-served by current coverage.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a bit of context by clarifying the move semantics that tie from_date and to_date together, but doesn't elaborate beyond what the schema provides. The dry_run and recipe_source parameters are fully covered by the schema descriptions.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource ('Move one recipe from one Cookidoo calendar day to another') which clearly states the action and scope. It distinguishes from siblings naturally: it's a move operation that combines add and remove, distinct from add_recipes_to_meal_plan and remove_recipe_from_meal_plan, and the rollback note further clarifies its compound behavior.

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 explicitly documents the execution order ('added to the target first and then removed from the source') and rollback behavior on failure, which gives clear expectations for when it's safe to use. However, it doesn't explicitly name when NOT to use it versus calling add plus remove separately, so it stops 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.