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

Adds context beyond the annotations: the draft is private and editable, the source Saved Week and This Week remain unchanged (reinforcing destructiveHint=false), and a linked Chop It account is required. It doesn't state what happens on repeated calls, so the idempotentHint=false implication is left implicit.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by the ID consumers and a short constraints clause. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.

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 output schema covers the return value and the description still usefully flags menuDraftId and its consumers; auth and non-mutation of the source are covered. The only real gap is sourcing savedWeekId, which neither schema nor description explains.

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 0% – savedWeekId carries only type/format uuid. The description implies the parameter identifies the Saved Week being copied but never says how to obtain the id (e.g., list_saved_weeks) or what happens with an invalid one.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a private, editable menu draft copied from a Saved Week'. It also scopes what is copied (dinner order and servings), which separates it from create_weekly_menu and get_menu_draft without opening either 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?

Names the downstream consumers of the returned menuDraftId (revise_weekly_menu, save_week, create_shopping_list), giving clear follow-on context. It does not explicitly contrast with create_weekly_menu or say when to build fresh rather than reopen a saved week, so no 5.

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