Menu Link Update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It implies a mutation but never states whether omitted fields are preserved, whether the change is reversible, what permissions are required, or how link_id is used to target the record.

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 single sentence is free of waste, but it is drastically under-specified for a 7-parameter mutation tool rather than genuinely concise. Brevity here comes at the cost of usability, not from efficiency.

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?

With no annotations, no parameter documentation, and a 7-parameter schema (including a nested free-form object), the description is far too thin to let an agent call this correctly. The existence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but nothing else is covered.

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% across 7 parameters, and the description compensates for none of them. Fields like 'link' (an arbitrary object), 'parent', 'weight', and 'expanded' are left completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 verb and resource ('Update a menu link'), which is unambiguous about the action, but it adds nothing beyond the tool name and title and does not distinguish it from siblings such as menu_link_create, menu_link_delete, menu_link_get, or menu_link_list. It is minimally viable rather than informative.

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 mention of prerequisites (e.g. the link must already exist), and no routing to alternatives like menu_link_create for new links. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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