mcp_assign_menu_location

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden but does not. It never states that assigning a menu to an already-occupied location overwrites the prior menu, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions are needed for a theme-level mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriate, though its brevity here shades into under-specification rather than pure efficiency.

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 three-required-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits key context: overwrite semantics, the unassign path, and how it relates to mcp_get_menu_locations/mcp_list_menus. It is far too thin to call the tool safely.

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%, and the schema already explains that menu_id 0 unassigns and that location is a theme-location slug, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb ('Assign') and resource ('a menu') plus the target ('a theme location') in one clean phrase. It is clearly distinct in kind from mcp_create_menu or mcp_add_menu_item, but it does not explicitly separate itself from sibling tools such as mcp_update_menu or mcp_get_menu_locations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus mcp_create_menu, mcp_update_menu, or mcp_get_menu_locations, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the menu must already exist, the location must be registered). The unassign case is not flagged either.

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