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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: exactly what is preserved (recipes, order, slot labels, locks, per-dinner servings), the side effects that do NOT occur, the idempotency contract with its status value ('already_saved'), and the conflict behavior on a stale draft revision. Annotations already flag idempotentHint, but the description explains what idempotency means here.

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-loaded with the core operation and densely informative, with no filler sentences. Slightly over-packed in the middle (return values plus three sibling cross-references), and the savedWeekId return note is partly redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Covers everything an agent needs for a mutation tool with one param: preconditions, side effects, idempotency, error/conflict recovery path, and how to chain into related tools. The output schema handles return shape, and cross-tool id lifetimes are explained rather than assumed.

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 required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It characterizes menuDraftId functionally — a completed draft, revision-sensitive, reusable as the same id for create_shopping_list and regenerable from savedWeekId. It stops short of stating the id's origin or format, but the semantics are clear enough to supply the right value.

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 ('Saves a completed menu draft ... as a reusable Saved Week') with the exact scope ('every dinner selected'). It distinguishes itself from save_menu/save_recipe family by naming which draft artifact it persists and explicitly contrasting with create_shopping_list and open_saved_week.

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 the precondition ('a completed menu draft (every dinner selected)', 'Requires a linked Chop It account'), the exclusions ('Leaves This Week unchanged and creates no shopping list'), and routes to concrete alternatives for both follow-up needs (create_shopping_list, open_saved_week, get_menu_draft for conflicts).

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