Schedule Lunch Menu Item (Admin)

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

Annotations already convey write/non-read, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the role requirement, the 'WRITE - confirm with the user' confirmation protocol, and the scope limitation ('This only schedules the item'). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact but information-dense: admin marker, action, scope limitation, sibling alternative, role requirement, confirmation prompt, and ID sources all appear in a few sentences. Key operational facts are front-loaded and every 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering idempotency/safety, the description supplies the remaining necessary context: role, confirmation, retirement alternatives, and ID source guidance. Nothing critical for selecting and invoking this tool is missing, though it could explicitly mention date format, but that is already in the schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context by pointing to the source list tools for restaurant_id and menu_item_id, and by explaining available_qty as 'optionally capping portions' / 'omit for unlimited', which reinforces the schema semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Puts a restaurant menu item on the orderable menu for a given date'. It explicitly distinguishes this action from retiring an item via update_restaurant_menu_item or archive_restaurant_menu_item, which clearly separates it from sibling tools.

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 when-not guidance by naming alternatives for retirement, states the required roles ('Requires pac_cordinator or lunch_cordinator role'), and instructs the agent to get IDs from list_school_restaurants and list_restaurant_menu_items. This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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