Update a navigation menu

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

Annotations already establish it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the basic purpose—it does not disclose that changing locations replaces existing assignments (though the schema does), nor any side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. Given annotations are present, the description's contribution is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words. It captures the core actions efficiently and is appropriately sized for a tool with a clear, narrow purpose.

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 has six parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. It omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the menu must already exist), site selection behavior, or what happens to unspecified fields. However, the schema covers parameter semantics, so the description is acceptable but could benefit from a note on usage scope.

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%, so the schema documents all six parameters. The description highlights 'name' and 'locations' as the key updatable fields but adds no additional meaning for auto_add, description, or site_id beyond what the schema provides. It meets the baseline without adding significant value.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Rename a menu' or 'change which theme locations it fills'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling menu tools like create_menu, delete_menu, add_menu_item, and update_menu_item. It precisely names the two primary operations, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 implies when to use the tool (when renaming or changing menu locations) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It does not mention that adding/removing items belongs to add_menu_item/delete_menu_item, nor any prerequisites like the menu existing. The usage context is only implied, not stated.

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