updateMenu

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that fields omitted are untouched and it writes live data, plus explains the _clear_fields behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, uses bullet points and sections for clarity. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the main 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 5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, the description covers usage, return format, and _clear_fields in depth. It explains idempotent behavior and needed fields. Slight gap in describing non-_clear_fields parameters, but overall adequate.

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 only 20% (only _clear_fields has a description). The description compensates by detailing _clear_fields and noting required menu_id, but does not explain menu_name, menu_title, menu_active. Usage scenarios provide some context, but not full parameter semantics.

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 clearly states it updates an existing menu record by ID, with specific use cases like renaming, toggling menu_active, and adjusting CSS/HTML attributes. It distinguishes from siblings createMenu and deleteMenu by explicitly naming them as alternatives.

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 'Use when' section specifies scenarios (renaming, toggling active, adjusting attributes). It also lists required parameter (menu_id) and provides 'See also' references to createMenu and deleteMenu, offering clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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