eda_sys_header_menu_remove_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. It only states the operation and the void return type; it does not mention whether the removal is irreversible, whether it affects system menu items as well as custom ones, whether windowId scoping changes the effect, or what happens if no header menus exist. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating 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 compact: a method signature followed by a one-line Chinese gloss. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. It omits useful behavioral detail, but structurally it is efficient for a simple tool definition.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to clarify scope, side effects, and window targeting behavior. The generic 'remove top menu data' plus a generic args array leaves an agent without enough context to know whether this removes all custom menus, whether system menus are affected, or how windowId influences the 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%, and the schema already describes both parameters: args as a JSON array in official signature order and windowId as the target or active EDA window. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states the action unambiguously as 'removeHeaderMenus()' and '移除顶部菜单数据' (remove top menu data). It identifies both the operation (remove) and the resource (header menus), and the plural form helps distinguish it from single-item menu removal tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with the closely related insert/replace/system menu sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus related sibling tools such as eda_sys_header_menu_insert_header_menus, eda_sys_header_menu_replace_header_menus, or eda_sys_header_menu_remove_system_header_menu_item. The description gives no context on what distinguishes 'removeHeaderMenus' from the system-item removal variant, and no preconditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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