set_daily_menu

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that this is a WRITE operation requiring user confirmation, and that quantity capping is optional. It also states role requirements, which is auth context beyond the annotations. No contradiction; doesn't detail overwrite behavior but the annotations lower the bar.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, role, write confirmation, and ID sourcing. Front-loaded with ADMIN label. No redundant filler.

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 write operation with a 4-parameter schema and output schema present, the description covers purpose, auth, confirmation, and parameter provenance. It doesn't explain what happens on duplicate assignments, but the output schema and annotations cover the rest. Fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters, including ID sources and the optional available_qty. The description restates the optional capping and ID sources without adding new syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Assigns a restaurant menu item to a date'), the actor (ADMIN), and the business purpose (so parents can order it). It clearly differentiates from sibling get_daily_menu (read) and create_menu_item (create), and from order_lunch (parent-side ordering).

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?

Explicitly labels this as an ADMIN operation, lists required roles (pac_cordinator or lunch_cordinator), and instructs to confirm with the user before performing a WRITE. It directs the caller to list_school_restaurants and list_menu_items for IDs, providing clear context on prerequisites. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it vs alternatives, but the context is clear.

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