Update a navigation menu

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-idempotent, non-read-only mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the two behavioral outcomes (rename, location change) but omits any side effects like the fact that locations are fully replaced (which is stated in the parameter description) or the effect on auto_add and description fields. It does not contradict the annotations; it just adds a modest amount of behavioral context beyond what they encode.

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 short sentence that front-loads the two most salient actions. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description under-specifies the tool's capabilities: it only mentions renaming and changing locations, while the schema shows the tool can also update auto_add and description. An agent might incorrectly conclude these fields are not settable via this tool. Additionally, it does not mention that locations replaces current assignments (though that is in the param schema). For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description alone is insufficient for complete understanding.

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% — every parameter (id, name, site_id, auto_add, locations, description) has a description. The tool description itself maps 'rename' to the name parameter and 'theme locations' to the locations parameter, but it does not mention auto_add or description as updatable fields. Since the schema already carries full meaning, the description adds marginal value; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Rename a menu or change which theme locations it fills' states specific verbs (rename, change) and the resource (menu), and specifically calls out two concrete actions that distinguish it from siblings like update_menu_item or delete_menu. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately scopes the tool to altering an existing menu's identity or placement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as create_menu, delete_menu, or update_menu_item. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., the menu must already exist), nor does it contrast with alternatives. An agent receives no explicit selection cues beyond the tool's name and vague action verbs.

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