save_meal_template

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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful detail that nutrients are expressed as {code: amount} per 1 portion, but says nothing about whether saving over an existing name overwrites it or what persistence side effects occur on repeat calls.

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 lines, front-loaded with the core action, and the nutrients format hint earns its space. The dangling 'Then logged in one call...' clause is slightly awkward as written but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. Still, for a 5-parameter write tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves meal_type and glycemic_index unexplained and does not resolve the overwrite question implied by idempotentHint, so it is only partially complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it explains only the nutrients format ({code: amount} per 1 portion). The four other parameters — meal_type, description, and glycemic_index in particular — get no semantic explanation, leaving the agent to guess their acceptable values and units.

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 and resource: saving a template for a frequent meal, keyed by name. It is distinguishable from log_meal (which logs an actual meal) and list_meal_templates, though it relies on the reader to infer those contrasts from sibling names rather than stating them.

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?

Usage is implied through the pointer 'Then logged in one call via log_from_template(name)', which sketches the intended workflow. However, it never says when to create a template versus logging directly with log_meal, and it gives no prerequisites or exclusion conditions.

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