Menu Delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely drops it. It does not say whether deletion is irreversible, whether contained menu links are cascade-deleted or orphaned, or what permissions are required — all critical for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — the tool would benefit from one more clause on consequences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive no-annotation tool the description should at minimum flag irreversibility or cascading effects. Given the rich sibling set of menu operations, the definition is too thin to route an agent safely.

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 0% and the description says nothing about menu_id, so an agent gets no format hints (machine name vs numeric id vs UUID) beyond the parameter name. With only one self-evidently named parameter this is a minor gap, but the description adds nothing the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a menu'), so an agent can identify the operation immediately. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as menu_link_delete, menu_get, or menu_update, leaving scope inferred rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives for removing menus versus menu links. The only signal is the imperative verb, which the agent must interpret on its own.

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