zernio_update_gmb_food_menus

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update' without explaining if this is a full overwrite or partial update, what happens to existing unpublished menus, or if there are API rate limits. The lack of detail leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence). It front-loads the action and resource. However, it could include a brief note about the JSON format or update behavior without becoming bloated. Still, it's efficient and to the point.

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?

The description lacks crucial context: what happens after update (e.g., returns updated menus or just success), how the menus parameter should be structured (example JSON), and any prerequisites (e.g., location must exist). With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more completeness to guide the agent 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?

The input schema already describes each parameter with sufficient detail: accountId, locationId, and menus (as JSON string). The description does not add extra context about the expected JSON structure, valid values, or example format. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3.

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-resource pair ('Update food menus') and specifies the platform ('Google My Business location'). It clearly differentiates from the read-only get counterpart. However, it does not clarify whether the update is additive or a full replacement, nor does it hint at the JSON structure, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no information about when to use this tool over siblings. For instance, it doesn't distinguish between updating menus vs. attributes or location details. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must first retrieve with get_gmb_food_menus) or limitations (e.g., only one update per location?).

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