eda_sys_right_click_menu_change_menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states that the tool modifies the right-click menu and returns a Promise<void>. It does not disclose whether the menu is replaced or merged, what null entries mean, what happens if menuId is invalid, or whether the change affects only the target window.

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 definition is short and front-loaded with the official signature, followed by a one-line Chinese summary. There is no unnecessary boilerplate, though the Chinese phrase mostly restates the signature's meaning.

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 UI tool with no annotations and no output schema, the missing semantics for `menuId`, `menuItems`, null handling, and target-window behavior are significant gaps. An agent could select this tool from its name but cannot confidently construct valid `menuItems` or predict the exact effect.

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?

The embedded signature supplies parameter names and types (`menuId: string`, `menuItems: Array<ISYS_RightClickMenuItem | null>`) that are absent from the opaque `args` array schema, which is useful. However, it stops at types and never explains what the menu items should contain or what `null` signifies, so the added semantic value is limited.

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 names a concrete resource, the right-click menu, and a specific verb from the official API, `changeMenu`, so an agent can identify the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the right-click-menu resource and method signature make its purpose reasonably distinct from header-menu tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternative would be appropriate. The only usage clue is the method signature and the one-line Chinese summary, so the agent must infer the context.

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