Prepare: Saved Meal Operation (FatSecret)

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

The description claims 'dry-run', which typically implies no side effects, while annotations say readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, suggesting the tool may modify state (e.g., creating a prepared operation). This is a direct contradiction. The description also does not clarify what 'prepare' actually does, such as whether it stores an operation handle or merely validates input.

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?

The description is extremely terse, which harms its usefulness rather than helping. It is a single sentence without any structure to guide the agent on workflow, parameters, or return values. While brevity is good, the under-specification makes it insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, a freeform nested object, and no output schema, but the description provides no context about what the tool returns, how to construct valid params, or how it relates to commit_prepared_operation. This is wholly inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool 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 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It only paraphrases the method enum ('create/edit/delete') without elaborating on the `params` object structure, the `reason` field, or how parameters differ across methods. The schema provides no descriptions, and the description offers no compensation, leaving the agent to guess the required fields.

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 action ('Dry-run: create/edit/delete a saved-meal template'), giving a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling prepare tools by targeting saved-meal operations specifically, though it does not explicitly mention the two-phase prepare/commit pattern.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like commit_prepared_operation or other prepare_* tools. The term 'dry-run' implicitly suggests a validation step, but the description does not explain the intended workflow or exclusions.

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