create_saved_meal

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds the auth requirement, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other traits like potential duplicate handling, side effects, or return behavior. With annotations covering basic mutation, the added auth info justifies a score of 3.

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 very concise, consisting of one sentence plus an auth note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While concise, it sacrifices completeness; however, for conciseness itself, it earns a high score.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, CRUD siblings), the description is incomplete. It omits what 'meals' and 'saved_meal_description' mean, what the response is, and how this tool fits exactly in the workflow. The auth requirement is useful, but overall the description leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 33% (only saved_meal_name has a brief description). The tool description adds no parameter explanations, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Since the description must add meaning beyond the schema and fails to do so, the score is low.

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 clearly states it creates a new saved meal, using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_saved_meals, edit_saved_meal, and delete_saved_meal, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not define what a 'saved meal' represents in this context, which would add further clarity.

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 prerequisite: profile authentication via check_auth_status. This is helpful but does not give guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create vs. edit). It lacks explicit conditions for use or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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