Remove the default custom menu from a WeChat Official Account after explicit user confirmation. Prevents accidental deletion by requiring a confirm flag before executing the menu removal.
删除默认自定义菜单；必须显式确认。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds a meaningful behavioral requirement that deletion only proceeds with explicit confirmation ('必须显式确认'). This is a useful safety-related disclosure beyond what the annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 extremely concise: a short, front-loaded sentence stating the action and the confirmation requirement. There is no filler, and every word contributes 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 simple single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and safety-relevant annotations, the description covers the critical operational facts: the target resource and the explicit confirmation requirement. It lacks guidance on alternatives and precise parameter naming, but those gaps are minor given the low complexity and existing structured context.
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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. '必须显式确认' directly implies that the boolean confirm parameter must be set to true to execute the deletion, which is especially clear given only one property exists. It does not name the parameter explicitly, but the mapping is unambiguous.
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 a specific verb (删除 'delete') and a specific resource (默认自定义菜单 'default custom menu'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_conditional_menu. The action and object are unambiguous and immediately comprehensible.
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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as delete_conditional_menu, get_current_menu, or create_menu. There are no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or excluded scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and the resource it targets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.