Update menu

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

Annotation already marks destructiveHint=true, but the description adds essential context: 'Items not included are DELETED from the menu.' This explains the exact destructive behavior beyond the annotation and advises a safe workflow. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the critical destructive caveat. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 destructive update tool with full schema coverage and explicit behavioral warning, the description is complete. It tells the agent what to do, why, and how to avoid data loss. No output schema exists, but mutation tools don't require return-value documentation to be usable.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context by emphasizing that 'items' must be the FULL menu and that IDs must be included to preserve existing items, which supplements the schema's per-field descriptions.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Replace') with a clear resource ('menu's items') and states the destructive replacement semantics. It clearly distinguishes menu_update from menu_list, which is about retrieving menus.

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?

Provides strong usage guidance: 'get the current items from menu_list first and include every item you want to keep, with their ids.' This establishes an explicit prerequisite and correct invocation pattern. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the reference to menu_list gives practical guidance.

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