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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the crucial consequence the annotations only imply: an incomplete payload wipes existing data ('what was there is wiped'). It also adds the required read-modify-write workflow and a human-confirmation requirement, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope ('WHOLE food menu') before the how-to and the safety warning. Every sentence earns its place: scope, workflow, and confirmation.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the scope, the destructive consequence, the read-first workflow, and the confirmation step. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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%, so accountId, foodMenus, locationId and idempotencyKey are all documented in the schema. The description reinforces the 'COMPLETE menu' semantics of foodMenus but adds no syntax, format detail, or field-level meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter load.

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 (replace) plus resource (food menu of the listing) and an explicit scope ('the WHOLE food menu'), which separates it from sibling update_gbp_listing and the analogous replace_gbp_services. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: read the current menu with get_gbp_listing and re-send it complete with the change, and confirm with the user first. It routes the agent to the companion read tool and states the prerequisite user-confirmation step, leaving nothing to inference.

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