Menus: create

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

Annotations only declare the safe-mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the created menu is empty, and a role is shown only its first menu so a second menu may silently not appear. That quirk is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry; only the absence of permission/role-privilege notes keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the empty-menu caveat and the first-menu quirk. Every sentence earns its place by either routing to a sibling or preventing a surprising outcome.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the creation result (empty menu) and the downstream workflow tools. It never says whether the response returns a menu ID needed for the follow-up menus_add_item call, which is the one operational detail an agent would still want.

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% with only two params, and the schema already explains `role_id` down to how to look it up with roles_list. The description adds no syntax or format detail for either parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-documented params applies.

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 ('Create a menu for a role') and immediately distinguishes the operation from siblings by noting the menu starts empty and pointing to `menus_add_item` for populating it. An agent can tell this apart from menus_update, menus_reorder, and menus_add_item without opening any schema.

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 concrete follow-up routing ('add items with menus_add_item', 'use menus_reorder to choose which comes first'), which is strong for sequencing. It lacks an explicit when-not or a contrast against menus_update for modifying an existing menu, so it stops just short of a 5.

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