update_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description must reveal behavioral traits. It mentions the required access scope, but fails to disclose that the items parameter completely replaces existing items, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be improved by incorporating key behavioral details such as the replacement behavior of items.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers basic purpose and required scope, but lacks details on parameter interactions (e.g., handle restrictions) and return behavior.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description lists the parameters but adds no additional meaning beyond their names. The access scope is a tool-level detail, not parameter-specific.

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 clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('existing navigation menu'), and the specific fields that can be modified ('title, handle, and items'). It also specifies the required access scope, which distinguishes it from other menu-related 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?

The description indicates when to use the tool (to update an existing menu), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention prerequisites. The schema hints at handle restrictions for default menus, but this is not in the description.

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