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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds that omitting student_id yields a new template — a useful non-obvious side effect — but says nothing about what gets duplicated, whether the copy is independent of the source, or the result payload.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and both modes, with zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 three-parameter copy operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision (target student or template) and the source lookup is documented in the schema. Missing is any statement of what the tool returns (e.g., the new plan id) and the role of title, which matters for a mutation call.

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 coverage is 67% and the source parameter (planId) plus student_id are already documented in the schema. The description clarifies the semantic effect of student_id (target student vs. template mode), but the title parameter has no description anywhere and is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undefined.

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 (copies) and resource (diet plan/template) and crisply distinguishes two operating modes based on the presence of student_id. It does not name the sibling tools it competes with (copy_program, schedule_diet_plan, create_diet_plan), so it stops just short of a 5.

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 a clear, actionable rule: pass student_id to copy to a student, omit it to save as a template. That is real usage guidance for the branch point an agent faces. It doesn't say when to prefer this over schedule_diet_plan/activate_diet_plan or create_diet_plan, so no exclusions.

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