manage_persistent_menu

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does not: it says nothing about permissions required, whether 'set' replaces or merges existing menu items, whether 'delete' is recoverable, or what 'get' returns when no menu exists. A mutation tool with zero annotation coverage needs more than one sentence about its side effects.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and no ambiguity about the resource. Its brevity costs completeness elsewhere, but as a structure it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 two-param, mutation-capable tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: an agent knows what object it touches but not the prerequisites, mutation semantics, or return behavior. Gaps are real but not disqualifying given the schema fully describes the inputs.

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 enum, item fields, and the 'up to 20 items' limit are already documented. The description adds no meaning about the action values or the call_to_actions payload beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

Names a specific resource (Instagram Persistent Menu) and the full operation set (view, set, delete), plus a parenthetical that explains what the menu is. It never distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling, manage_ice_breakers, which is another messaging-surface configuration tool.

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?

Usage is only implied by the action enum in the schema ('get', 'set', 'delete'). There is no statement of when to use this versus manage_ice_breakers or send_quick_replies, no preconditions (e.g., Instagram messaging permissions or a connected page), and no note on which action is appropriate in which situation.

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