edit_saved_meal

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent with these. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the auth requirement, which is not captured in annotations. It does not contradict any annotation, and the additional auth detail improves transparency.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and target fields, the second adds a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has 4 parameters with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description does not fully cover the 'meals' parameter's semantics or the return behavior. It does not differentiate from the sibling 'edit_saved_meal_item'. The auth requirement is helpful, but the agent may still be uncertain about how to format the 'meals' parameter.

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 coverage is only 25% (only 'saved_meal_id' has a description). The description lists the editable fields, mapping to the parameter names, but it does not explain the format or expected values for 'meals' (e.g., is it a JSON array of IDs? a string?). This partial compensation prevents a lower score, but more detail is needed for fully correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('saved meal') and lists the exact fields that can be modified ('name, description, or associated meals'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'edit_saved_meal_item' (which edits items within a meal) and 'create_saved_meal'.

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 ('Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)') which is useful for invoking the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with similar siblings like 'edit_saved_meal_item' or 'copy_saved_meal_entries', leaving the agent to infer when to use this one versus others.

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