update_custom_menu

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description reinforces this by saying 'Update' and advising to read first, which implies overwriting. It also adds context about template regeneration, which is a behavioral detail. 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 only two sentences, both informative and to the point. First sentence states purpose, second adds actionable guidance. No wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (20 parameters, template system), the description is somewhat minimal. It mentions templates but does not explain how parameters relate to template types or the overall update process. Schema descriptions help, but the description could be more complete regarding usage scenarios.

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 100%, so the description does not need to elaborate on each parameter. It adds a slight extra by linking 'content' to templates, but overall does not significantly augment the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Update') and resource ('existing custom menu'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_custom_menu or delete_custom_menu. The verb 'Update' is specific, and the suggestion to read with get_custom_menu first adds clarity.

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 description gives a clear prerequisite: 'Read with get_custom_menu first.' It also mentions template usage for regeneration, which guides when to use templates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like create_custom_menu.

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