custom_menus_create_custom_menu

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the token authorization requirement, which is a useful behavioral detail not in annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, return behavior, or other consequences beyond that, so it only partially augments the annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence. It front-loads the core action and includes a critical prerequisite parenthetically. No fluff, every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sentence for the token requirement) without losing brevity.

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?

This tool has 11 parameters, 9 required, nested objects, and no output schema. The description is extremely minimal—it provides the action and a token requirement but omits context about what the custom menu link is, how the parameters interrelate (e.g., showOnCompany vs. showOnLocation), or what a successful response looks like. For a tool of this complexity, more contextual guidance is needed.

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%–all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning for parameters (e.g., no explanation of conditional dependencies like showToAllLocations vs. locations). With full schema coverage, a score of 3 is baseline for not detracting, but it does not elevate the guidance.

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 the action ('Create Custom Menu Link') and the resource (custom menu link), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get, update, and delete. The added note about requiring an agency-level token makes the purpose even more specific and useful.

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 key usage prerequisite (agency-level token vs. location PIT) which is helpful, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool compared to its siblings (e.g., 'use this to create, use update_custom_menu to modify'). The creation intent is implicit but not contrasted with alternatives.

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