custom_menus_update_custom_menu

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

The description adds the token requirement, which is useful behavioral context not present in annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. However, it does not disclose other behavior such as whether the update is partial or full, or what the response contains, but given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and adds a key constraint. It is efficient with no fluff, but it lacks additional context that could be inserted without bloating, making it appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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 12 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is notably thin. It only mentions the token requirement and does not provide guidance on how to structure updates (e.g., when to set locations vs showOnCompany), or what the expected return is. Even though the schema has descriptions, the description fails to add operational context that an agent would need for correct invocation.

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%, meaning the schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics. Per rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not enhance understanding of parameters like the relationship between locations, showOnLocation, and showToAllLocations.

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 'Update Custom Menu Link' which clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (custom menu link). It distinguishes from sibling create/delete/get operations by its verb. However, it uses 'Link' rather than the broader 'Custom Menu' which might slightly narrow the scope, but it's still clear enough.

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 a critical prerequisite (agency-level token, not location PIT) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create/delete/get custom menus. It does not mention typical use cases or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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