Menus: add item

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false). The description adds substantial non-annotated behavior: the link target (entity dashboard data page), naming behavior (title-cased entity name unless name is given), icon default (Lucide, Database), placement semantics (last at top level or under parent), and the entity-existence precondition.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then defaults, then placement, then the precondition and the alternative path. Four dense sentences with no filler; every clause carries operational information an agent needs before calling.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers creation semantics, defaults, placement, and precondition well. The only gap is the return value (no output schema, and the follow-up 'set href with menus_update_item' implies the agent must identify the created item), which the description does not clarify.

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 3 baseline applies to the defaults already documented per-parameter. The description still adds value beyond the schema by explaining item placement ('goes last at the top level or under parent') and that entity drives both display name and href, which the schema only hints at.

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 verb and resource ('Add a menu item for an entity') and immediately characterizes what the created item is: a link to the entity's dashboard data page. It also names the sibling used for the adjacent operation (menus_update_item), so an agent can distinguish it from menus_update_item, menus_create and menus_remove_item.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('The entity must exist') and routes the agent to the correct alternative when the goal differs: add first, then 'set href with menus_update_item'. It does not cover when-not to use this tool (e.g., creating a whole menu via menus_create, or reordering via menus_reorder_items), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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