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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating it replaces the entire menu list and requires 'host' for access. Annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent and complemented by the description.

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 concise: two sentences covering purpose, parameters, and behavior. It is front-loaded with the key action. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured.

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 tool with 3 parameters and complex array input but no output schema, the description adequately explains input and behavior. It lacks return value info, but that's acceptable given the tool's nature.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the menu array structure with fields, optionality, and that tags represent allergens. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though event_id and item_id are not elaborated.

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 sets a meal's menu with an array structure and replaces the whole list. It specifies required IDs and role. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools for menu manipulation, though no obvious sibling exists.

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 mentions required parameters and player role ('host') but lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No explicit when-not-to-use or context for selecting this over others.

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