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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the confirm-gated preview/execute flow and the meal-level ingredients/quantities requirement, but omits permissions, visibility effects, and what the preview returns.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler — the core action leads and the meals constraint follows. Slightly terse given the parameter surface, 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?

For an 8-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 13% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It never addresses most parameters or the visibility/permission implications of saving a shareable template.

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 13% across 8 params, so the description needs to compensate and largely does not. It adds meaning only for 'meals' (nested ingredients array with quantities) and implicitly for 'confirm'; goal, tags, difficulty, visibility, title, and description are left undocumented.

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+resource ('Save a reusable diet plan template'), and the 'template' qualifier separates it from create_diet_plan. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Only clue about when to use it is the parenthetical '(confirm-gated)', which describes mechanics rather than usage context. No guidance on when to prefer this over create_diet_plan or update_diet_plan_template, and no prerequisites.

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