menu_add

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses that the operation is equivalent to an editor menu click, that it is undoable (可撤销), that package-type items trigger a download before import, and what the result contains (added_objects with name and object_path). It omits permission/auth requirements and whether the project must be saved afterward, which keeps it from a 5.

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 compact clauses, each carrying unique information: what it does, the undo/download caveats, and the return shape. Nothing is repeated from the schema and the core action is front-loaded.

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 definition covers the essentials including a description of the return value. The remaining gap is context around preconditions (an open project, and that menu_id should be fetched via menu_list), which is only inferable from the schema rather than stated.

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 coverage is 100%, so menu_id, instance_id and project_path are all already documented in the schema, including the instance_id/project_path either-or and the 'may omit when only one project window is open' rule. The description adds only the semantic that menu_id selects an official menu entry and that package-type entries have side effects. That is marginal value over the schema, 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?

States a specific verb + resource: 'add an official feature object to the scene by menu_id', with the equivalence 'same as clicking in the editor menu'. That is concrete and distinct from siblings like menu_list (listing) or works_download (asset acquisition). It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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: the phrase '按 menu_id' plus the schema note that menu_id comes from menu_list hints at a lookup-then-add flow, and 'kind=package 的项会先下载' hints at a slow path. There is no explicit 'use this when X, use Y instead' guidance or statement of prerequisites such as needing an open project.

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