Import a full menu into Crave

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses the mechanism: 're-importing updates existing items by name instead of duplicating.' It also surfaces a non-obvious side effect: 'Forces menu.isActive=true unless explicitly set false.' These are actionable behavioral details not present in the annotations, and there is no contradiction with them.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: scope of import, source use-case, idempotency behavior, activation default and follow-up. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler or restatements of schema fields.

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 tool with nested objects and a two-phase dry-run/apply flow, the description orients the agent well on the bulk import scenario, idempotency, and post-import activation. It does not mention the required dry-run-then-apply workflow or confirmationToken, but the schema's mode and planDigest descriptions fully cover those, so the gap is minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that re-import matches items by name and that isActive defaults to true unless set otherwise, which reinforces and extends the schema's weightier parameters. It does not duplicate enum or format details.

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 states a specific action ('Store a complete menu ... at a Crave location in one call') and enumerates exactly what is included: categories, products, prices, image URLs, modifiers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_product, delete_product, and set_menu_active, which operate on a single item or activation state.

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 gives explicit context: 'Use this after extracting a menu from a website, PDF, or photos,' and provides a follow-up action ('Follow with set_menu_active if needed'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives for partial updates, so it stops 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.