remove_recipe_from_meal_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It doesn't state that this is a mutation (destructive) operation, doesn't explain dry_run semantics beyond the schema, doesn't mention what happens to the meal plan if removal succeeds/fails, and doesn't describe the response shape. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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, efficient sentence that states the core function with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded. It could add a brief usage note without hurting conciseness, but as written it's structurally clean.

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?

There is an output schema present, which covers return-value expectations. The tool has 4 params, all of which are schema-covered, and no nested objects. But it's a mutation tool with no annotations—the description is one sentence and doesn't address the mutation safety profile, dry_run's role in validation, or relationship to siblings like move_recipe_in_meal_plan. Given moderate tool complexity and full schema coverage, score 3 is fitting.

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 all four parameters (date, recipe_id, dry_run, recipe_source) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how date and recipe_id interact, nor how dry_run output should be interpreted. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Remove one recipe from a Cookidoo meal-plan day.' It clearly indicates the action (remove) and resource (recipe/day), and differentiates from siblings like add_recipes_to_meal_plan and move_recipe_in_meal_plan. However, 'day' is slightly ambiguous—does it remove the recipe completely or just from that day's slot? The single sentence purpose is clear enough but doesn't deepen the distinction.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., whether connection to Cookidoo is required before removal), no indication of when to prefer this over move_recipe_in_meal_plan, and no exclusion cases. There's implied context that this is for removing items from an existing meal-plan day, but no explicit alternatives or preconditions are provided.

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