update_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral constraint that the entire menu structure must be passed, including existing item IDs. However, it does not explicitly state whether omitted items are deleted, whether this is a destructive/replacement operation, or any authorization requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise (three short sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently combines a clear statement of purpose, a critical usage constraint, and a pointer to a simpler alternative without any fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested menu structure) and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it must be invoked (full structure), and when to choose an alternative. It does not explain the return value or what happens to omitted items, but the core guidance is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters in detail. The description adds important semantics beyond the schema by emphasizing that the entire menu structure must be provided (making 'items' effectively required) and that existing items need IDs. This transcends the schema's mere property descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool updates an existing navigation menu, using a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('navigation menu'). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool update_menu_item_children, which helps differentiate its purpose from that alternative.

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 explicit usage guidance: it requires passing the entire menu structure including all items and IDs, and suggests using the sibling tool update_menu_item_children for simpler partial updates. This gives clear 'when to use this vs. alternatives' context.

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