createMenu

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: BD does NOT enforce uniqueness on `menu_name`, duplicates cause wrong menu rendering, and a server-side pre-check is required before creation. It also discloses the return value shape and the `_admin_edit_url` deep-link, going well beyond what annotations provide.

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 relatively long but well-structured with bolded labels (Use when, Required, Pre-check, Parameter interactions, See also, Returns). Each section serves a purpose, and there is no filler. The length is justified by the operational warnings and return details, though it could be slightly tightened without losing value.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, required parameters, critical duplicate-prevention steps, parameter interactions for key fields, and the exact return object including `_admin_edit_url`. It omits explanations for optional layout-related fields, but these are likely less critical; overall it gives an agent enough to use the tool safely and effectively.

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 carries the burden. It adds meaningful semantics for three of nine parameters: `menu_name` as internal identifier (max 35), `menu_title` as visible heading, and `menu_active` with 0/1 mapping. However, six other parameters (`menu_div_id`, `menu_div_css`, `menu_effects`, etc.) are left unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of 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 opens with 'Create a menu - Create a new menu record. Writes live data.' which clearly identifies the action (create), the resource (menu record), and the live-write nature. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly referencing 'createMenuItem' for adding entries and 'updateMenu' for modifying existing menus, making its purpose distinct.

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 '**Use when:** adding a new navigation container' gives a clear condition for use. It also provides explicit alternatives: 'After creating the container, add entries via `createMenuItem`' and 'If taken: reuse via `updateMenu`, OR ask the user, OR pick an alternate `menu_name`'. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and when to turn to others.

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