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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the destructive effect is spelled out ("replaces whatever week the user currently has set"), plus an auth requirement ("Requires a linked Chop It account") and a compatibility/deprecation signal ("for older callers"). It partially restates idempotentHint with "Idempotent for the same draft" and doesn't say whether the replaced week survives in list_saved_weeks, which matters for a destructiveHint=true operation.

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?

Front-loads the compatibility framing and then the concrete action, with every sentence carrying routing or behavioral information. It is slightly long at five sentences and the save_week contrast is made twice, but nothing is filler.

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?

For a single-parameter mutation with a full annotation set and an output schema, the description covers action, alternatives, destructive scope, auth, and idempotency. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly; return values are already covered by the output schema.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that menuDraftId comes from create_weekly_menu. The description adds no further meaning to the parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-documented parameters applies.

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 compound verb+resource: saves a completed menu draft as a Saved Week and makes it This Week in one step. It explicitly distinguishes itself from save_week (save only, leaves This Week unchanged) and set_this_week (the other half of the canonical workflow), so an agent can separate the three without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit use case ("an explicit request such as 'make this my week now'"), names the preferred modern alternative (save_week followed by set_this_week), and adds a confirmation condition (confirm with the user when they already have a week in progress). Nothing about when to choose this over siblings is left to inference.

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