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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing the two-step preview/confirmation workflow and that the call is non-applying, which materially changes how an agent should report the result to the user. The annotations only say readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false; the description explains the actual mechanism behind 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?

Short and front-loaded with the purpose in the first clause, which is exactly right. The cents sentence is unrelated drift for a tool with no monetary fields, so one of three sentences does not fully earn 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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers the critical unknown: that nothing is applied until the merchant confirms. It omits the menu_get-first prerequisite and the 24-item cap, both of which live in the schema, so the agent still needs the schema to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'items' parameter is richly documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description's only parameter-adjacent claim ('Money is integer minor units (cents)') corresponds to no field in this schema and adds nothing usable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change the header menu') that is immediately distinguishable from the read-side sibling menu_get. It does not reference menu_get by name in the description (that routing hint lives only in the schema's items description), so it is clear but stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Conveys the operative context: this is a propose-then-confirm flow, where the call itself is harmless and the merchant must act on the returned page. It gives the condition under which a change actually lands, but offers no explicit 'when not to use' or pointer to menu_get as the prerequisite read.

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