Menus: update item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior beyond them: it is a partial update ('changes only the fields you pass'), moved items land last under the new parent, and locked built-in items cannot be modified. The 'changes or deletes existing data' line is somewhat redundant with destructiveHint, but the move-ordering and lock constraints are real added value.

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-loaded with purpose, then scope, then edge behavior, then the sibling alternative and caution. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: partial-update semantics, move side effects, immutable locked items, the alternative sibling for reordering, and a confirmation prompt. Nothing material 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 all 7 parameters including the href/entity mutual exclusivity and parent=0 semantics. The description's parameter glosses (entity links to that entity's page, href any path, parent 0 for top level) largely mirror what the schema already says, adding little extra meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Change a menu item's name, icon, link or parent') and enumerates the exact mutable fields, so an agent can tell it apart from menus_update, menus_add_item, and menus_remove_item without opening any 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 explicitly routes the agent to an alternative ('To reorder items without moving them, use menus_reorder_items') and names the condition that selects it, plus adds a caution to confirm with the user before running. The when-to-use boundary is fully stated.

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