mcp_add_menu_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the basic mutation. It does not state required permissions, what happens on duplicate items, whether position/parent defaults matter, or what the call returns.

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?

A single economical sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a 9-parameter mutation tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits behavioral consequences, permission requirements, and any noteworthiness of the object_type/url custom-link distinction. The rich schema partially compensates but the description does not.

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 schema itself documents all 9 parameters (site, menu_id, title, url, object, object_id, object_type, parent, position). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 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?

The description states a clear verb+resource ('Add an item to a menu'), which an agent can distinguish from mcp_update_menu_item and mcp_delete_menu_item. However, it offers no explicit differentiation or scoping versus those siblings beyond the obvious verb.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like mcp_update_menu_item for modifying an existing item. The agent must infer the relationship to sibling tools entirely on its own.

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