set_rich_menu_defaultAssign a rich menu as the default for a LINE Official Account, so it appears automatically for all users. Provide the rich menu ID.
Set a rich menu as the default rich menu.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| richMenuId | Yes | The ID of the rich menu to set as default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1-localDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation destructiveHint=true is present, and the description aligns with that by implying a state-changing operation. The description does not add further detail about the irreversible nature or impact on other rich menus, but it does not contradict the annotation. Since the annotation already signals destructiveness, the description is adequate but not enhanced.
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 a single sentence with no extra wordslint. It is concise and to the point, achieving the goal without any fluff.
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?
The tool has a single parameter fully documented and no output schema, so the description's minimalism might suffice, but given the existence of related tools like cancel_rich_menu_default, some context on the effect on existing defaults or prerequisites would be helpful for an agent to understand the operational context. Thus, it falls short of complete.
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%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the information.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Set a rich menu as the default rich menu.' However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'cancel_rich_menu_default' or 'create_rich_menu', but the purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand the core function.
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 versus alternatives. For example, it could mention that this is used after creating a rich menu and that only one default can exist. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.