copy_saved_meal_entries

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description is not required to restate mutation. It adds value by specifying the auth requirement (profile auth) and suggesting a check_auth_status first, which is beyond the structured annotations. It does not disclose other behaviors such as duplicate creation on repeated calls, but the idempotentHint already covers that.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary action in the first sentence and adding an important prerequisite in the second. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description sufficiently covers the core function and auth requirement. While there is no output schema and the description omits details about return values or error handling, the operation is straightforward and the schema covers parameters, making the description almost complete for an agent 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters clearly described. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb 'Copy' and identifies the resource ('entries from a saved meal') and the target ('a meal on a specific date'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy_food_entries, which copies existing entries between meals, and get_saved_meals, which retrieves saved meals.

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 provides a precondition: 'Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first),' which guides sequencing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like copy_food_entries or create_food_entry, nor does it mention exclusions. The usage is implied by the purpose, but not explicitly articulated.

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