mcp_delete_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether deletion is permanent, whether contained menu items are cascaded/removed with the menu, whether a confirmation or special capability is required, or what happens when the ID does not exist — all critical for an irreversible 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 short sentence with no wasted words and the verb front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness for a destructive tool.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must supply safety and side-effect context. It provides none: no irreversibility warning, no cascade behavior, no permission requirements, leaving the agent under-informed for a delete operation.

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%, with both 'id' (Menu ID) and 'site' (Site id, see list_sites) documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about identifier format or how to discover valid menu IDs beyond what the schema already states.

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 gives a clear verb+resource pair ('Delete a navigation menu'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it does not distinguish itself from the very close sibling mcp_delete_menu_item, which deletes a single item inside a menu rather than the whole menu — a distinction that matters a lot for a destructive call.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions or alternatives named. With siblings such as mcp_delete_menu_item, mcp_update_menu, and mcp_create_menu present, the description leaves the agent to infer which one applies from context alone.

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