mcp_update_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only says 'update/rename'. It does not state required capabilities, whether the change is reversible, how other menu fields (items, locations) are affected, or what a failed rename looks like.

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 phrase with the scoping hint front-loaded and no waste, though it is arguably terse enough to be under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits prerequisites, side effects, and result behavior; it is not sufficient on its own to call this tool confidently.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents id, name, and site. The description adds nothing beyond the 'rename' hint, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate rather than lower or higher.

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 and resource ('Update a navigation menu') and the parenthetical '(rename)' narrows the operation, which implicitly distinguishes it from mcp_update_menu_item. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with its nearest siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this renames an existing menu rather than creating or deleting one, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over mcp_update_menu_item, mcp_assign_menu_location, or mcp_create_menu.

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