Activate or deactivate a menu

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context beyond that: it explains why setting isActive matters, references the storefront fallback behavior, and notes the API key requirement. The dry-run/apply flow is left to the schema, but the description still contributes meaningful behavioral context.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the purpose, the recommended workflow context, and the auth requirement. The description is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential workflow, auth, and effect. It does not mention the dry-run/apply round-trip, but the input schema documents that. Overall the agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented menuId, isActive, or locationId parameters. It clarifies the isActive concept indirectly, but it does not explain how menuId or locationId should be obtained or used, leaving a real gap for an agent.

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 and resource: 'Set menu.isActive explicitly' and states the consequence for the storefront. It clearly distinguishes itself from related siblings by placing it in the import_menu/list_menus workflow.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: 'Prefer after import_menu when list_menus shows isActive:false.' This identifies when the tool is appropriate in the workflow. It does not state exclusions or alternatives beyond that, but for this domain the guidance is clear.

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