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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the key side effects: recipes are copied into the user's library, a private menu draft is created, and a menuDraftId is returned. It also specifies important invariants—the source week and the user's This Week remain unchanged—and the account prerequisite, with no contradiction of the non-destructive annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and effect, followed by the invariants and account requirement. Every sentence adds useful information, with no repetition or wasted phrasing.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not fully explain return values, but it still names menuDraftId and its intended follow-up uses. Combined with annotations and complete parameter schema coverage, the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter shareCode, including the crucial distinction that it is an intentional public share code and never a private collection or draft ID. The description references shareCode but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: it copies a shared week identified by shareCode into the user's account. It also describes the concrete effects—recipes join the library and a private menu draft is created—so an agent can distinguish it from share_week, preview_shared_week, and save_week without opening schemas.

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?

Usage context is clear because the description says the created menuDraftId is used for review, save_week, or shopping, and it notes the prerequisite of a linked Chop It account. It does not explicitly contrast with preview_shared_week or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of fully explicit routing.

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