Menus: remove item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation is known. The description adds real value beyond annotations: it discloses the cascade deletion of child items, the refusal conditions for locked/nested items, and the user-confirmation requirement. It does not describe auth requirements or rate limits, keeping 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the failure conditions, then the safety warning. No filler, though it could be slightly tighter. Every sentence 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?

For a destructive, 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, cascade effects, refusal conditions, alternative tool, and confirmation requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it safely and 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the pointer to menus_list for menu_id. The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb (remove/delete) and resource (menu item), and crucially limits scope by stating it deletes the item plus its direct children. An agent can distinguish this from menus_update_item or menus_delete without opening a schema.

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?

It states the precondition (won't touch locked items or items whose children are locked/nested) and names the workaround tool (menus_update_item) to move items out first. It also tells the agent to confirm with the user before running. This is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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