Menu Update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it never says whether this is a partial or full replacement update, what happens to unspecified fields, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions are needed. Only the bare fact of mutation is conveyed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. The problem is that it is under-specified rather than concise: brevity here comes at the cost of all useful content.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but the update semantics and parameter meanings remain undocumented on both sides.

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% for three parameters, and the description mentions no parameters at all. The meaning of menu_id (required), label, and description (nullable, default null) is left entirely to the agent's guesswork, so the description compensates for nothing.

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?

"Update an existing menu" names a specific verb and resource, so an agent knows it mutates a menu entity rather than a menu link. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title and offers no differentiation from siblings like menu_create, menu_delete, or the menu_link_update family.

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 menu_create, menu_delete, or menu_link_update, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. that the menu must already exist, or required permissions). The agent must infer applicability purely from the name.

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