Menus: update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: menu items are left untouched, a role only displays its first menu so reassignment can hide a menu, and the user should be consulted first. That side-effect disclosure goes well beyond what the annotation flags provide.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then adds constraints and the sibling pointer. Slightly long at four sentences, with the closing 'check with the user' line verging on boilerplate, but every sentence carries actionable content.

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 an update tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation, its side effects, the relevant alternative tool, and the confirmation requirement. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already documents name, role and menu_id, and the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic weight to the role parameter (visibility and first-menu-only behavior) but says nothing extra about name or menu_id syntax.

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?

States a specific verb (rename / change role) and resource (menu), and implicitly separates itself from menus_update_item, menus_reorder and menus_delete by saying 'its items stay as they are'. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the 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?

Gives the when (rename a menu or change its role) and points to a concrete alternative with its condition: use menus_reorder to choose which menu comes first. It also warns that moving a menu to a role that already has one may hide it, which is the kind of edge condition that changes a caller's decision.

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