academy_add_menu_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the page must already be published before use, and that pageUrl must be server-relative with a concrete example. The sequencing prerequisite is valuable. It doesn't disclose what happens on failure or whether existing menu items get overwritten, but given a simple 3-param tool this is reasonably complete.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key constraints. The concrete URL example is efficient. Slight inefficiency is that the language/dutch adds a little overhead, but each sentence earns 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 3-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains purpose, parameters, sequencing, and relationships to sibling tools. It covers the main behavioral constraint (must publish first). Missing some detail like whether parentId is validated or what happens on invalid pageUrl, but overall adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It does: title is mentioned as required, pageUrl explained with a concrete example and server-relative constraint, and parentId explained as coming from academy_list_menu to nest under a section. This fully covers all parameters despite empty schema descriptions.

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: placing a published page into a menu ('Zet een gepubliceerde pagina in het menu'). It specifies the required parameters and the optional parentId. It distinguishes well from siblings like academy_list_menu (viewing the menu) and academy_publish_page (publishing the page). No explicit sibling named, but action is distinct enough.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: after publishing ('Doe dit pas NA publiceren'), and references the sibling academy_list_menu for sourcing parentId. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative for creating/publishing pages or state when NOT to use it beyond the sequencing note.

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