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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirm-gating behavior and the partial-update semantics (only changed fields), which is meaningful behavioral context. But it does not clarify whether omitted fields are preserved vs cleared, or what permissions/auth are required for editing a template.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the gating/partial-update constraint. No wasted words.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 11% schema coverage, this description is too thin. It omits permission requirements, the fate of unspecified fields, and return/response behavior—significant gaps an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 only 11% (just the 'confirm' param is documented). The description's 'only send the fields that change' adds partial-update meaning but leaves the 9 parameters—id, goal, tags, meals, title, difficulty, visibility, description—undocumented in both schema and description, so it barely compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Edit an existing diet plan template'), which clearly distinguishes it from create_diet_plan_template and delete_diet_plan_template siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 send the fields that change' gives useful partial-update usage guidance, and '(confirm-gated)' hints at execution gating. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs update_diet_plan or create_diet_plan_template, so usage is only implied.

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