createMenuItem

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false), non-destructive, not idempotent, and possibly has side effects (openWorldHint: true). The description adds that it 'writes live data' and explains parameter interactions, but does not elaborate on what side effects might occur (e.g., whether creating a menu item affects ordering of other items or triggers any events). Given the annotations provide a baseline, the description adds moderate value.

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 well-structured with a clear summary line, then separated into 'Use when', 'Required', 'Enums', 'Parameter interactions', and 'See also'. It is concise enough (no fluff) but could trim some redundancy (e.g., 'Create a menu item' repeated). Overall efficient.

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 complexity (9 params, required fields, enums, hierarchical structure), the description covers essential aspects: when to use, prerequisites, parameter interactions. However, it is silent on the return value (likely the created menu item's ID) and does not elaborate on potential side effects (consistent with openWorldHint: true). An output schema would help, but without it, the description could mention what the user gets back. Still, the description is adequate for an experienced user.

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?

The description adds significant semantic meaning beyond the schema: it explains the relationship between menu_id and createMenu/listMenus, the hierarchy concept of master_id (0 vs parent item ID), the ordering convention for menu_order, and enumerates menu_target options. It also lists required fields. Some parameters like menu_class and menu_icon are not explained, but the schema itself lacks descriptions for those (44% coverage). The description improves usability for the key parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('menu item'), and distinguishes itself from sibling 'createMenu' (creates menu container) and 'updateMenuItem' (modifies existing). The phrase 'Writes live data' reinforces the action.

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 clear context for when to use (adding a nav link to existing menu) and includes prerequisites (parent menu_id must exist) and an alternative for modification (updateMenuItem). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the guidance is strong enough.

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