eda_sys_header_menu_insert_header_menus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the signature and return type (Promise<void>) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this creates or replaces existing menus, whether it is additive, whether it overwrites, what happens if invalid data is passed, or whether it applies to the current window/EDA session. '插入' (insert) implies mutation, but the tool lists no MCP annotations that indicate destructive or read-only behavior, so the agent lacks the safety context needed for invoking a mutation tool.

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 short (the function signature plus one short Chinese sentence), which is efficient, but a short description that merely re-states the tool's name in a different form is not a good use of the sentence. It commits no padding, but it also does not add useful structure such as an effect description, example, or usage condition. Front-loading the signature is arguably useful for exact invocation syntax, but the semantic sentence is vague.

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 mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque generically-typed 'args' parameter, the description is under-specified. The signature tells the agent the method name and return type, and the schema adds that args is an array in official signature order, but an agent cannot construct a correct call without knowing the required fields of ISYS_HeaderMenus. Since the description does not explain the input structure, the side effects, or the relationship with sibling header-menu tools, the definition is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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% because the schema contains descriptions for its only two properties ('args' and 'windowId'). However, the schema itself is generic: the description for 'args' is only '按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组' (JSON parameter array arranged in official signature order) and the 'items' is empty ({}), so it does not document the shape of ISYS_HeaderMenus. The tool description does not compensate by explaining what a headerMenus object looks like or what fields are required. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage applies, but this is still a weak definition because the one semantic parameter (headerMenus) is left completely undocumented.

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 repeats the function signature ('sys_HeaderMenu.insertHeaderMenus(headerMenus: ISYS_HeaderMenus) -> Promise<void>') followed by a Chinese phrase '导入顶部菜单数据' (import top menu data). The name itself says 'insert header menus', and the description adds only the notion of 'top menu data' but does not explain what inserting/importing header menus does, the effect, or what a header menu is. It distinguishes from siblings only via the name, not through the description. It is close to a tautology: the description restates the resource and the action without defining the behavior or scope.

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 use this tool vs alternatives. Among siblings there are closely related tools such as eda_sys_header_menu_insert_system_header_menu_item, eda_sys_header_menu_replace_header_menus, and eda_sys_header_menu_remove_header_menus, but the description does not name them, explain the difference between inserting custom header menus vs system header menu items, or state when one should prefer this tool. An agent must guess the use case from the name alone.

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