Delete a navigation menu

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states that the menu AND all its items are deleted, and that the theme location falls back to default output. It also emphasizes the confirm requirement, which is a significant operational nuance. However, it does not mention any auth/role requirements or what happens on success/failure, which would be reasonable given the destructive nature.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded ('Delete a navigation menu and all of its items.'), and the behavioral consequence (theme location fallback) plus the critical requirement (confirm) follow immediately. Every word earns its place; there is no extraneous detail.

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 deletion tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main consequences (cascade deletion, theme fallback) and the required confirm flag. It doesn't explicitly discuss return behavior or error handling, but those are often non-critical for delete operations. Given the annotations already carry the safety hints, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of all three parameters (id, confirm, site_id), including descriptions and the confirm's irreversibility warning. The description's only parameter-related mention is 'Requires confirm: true,' which is redundant with the schema's 'Required — menus and their items cannot be recovered.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description adds little value beyond what's already structured.

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 the action explicitly: 'Delete a navigation menu and all of its items.' This covers the verb, resource, and scope (menu + items). It also mentions the theme location fallback, which adds context. The sibling delete_menu_item exists, but this description clearly targets the whole menu, so it is distinguishable without further detail.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_menu_item. It does mention 'Requires confirm: true,' which is an operational requirement, and the behavioral note about theme location fallback gives context. However, there is no explicit 'when to use / when not to use' statement, and no mention of alternative tools. The deletion intent is clear from the purpose, so some usage context is implied.

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