Delete LINE Rich Menu

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

Beyond annotations (e.g., destructiveHint=true), the description reveals that linked users break silently, which annotations do not capture. It also details the requirement for confirm and the return format, providing rich behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the action and key warning. Every sentence adds value, and the Args/Returns section is structured clearly without redundancy.

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 delete operation with annotations, the description covers return format ({ success: true, deleted_id }), the silent link-breaking behavior, and the confirm requirement. No output schema exists, but the description is sufficient.

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 coverage is low (33%), but the description compensates by explaining that rich_menu_id starts with 'richmenu-', confirm must be true, and oa is optional. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though more detail on oa could be provided.

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 'Delete a rich menu by ID' with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from the sibling tool line_audit_user_menu by suggesting its use as a pre-check. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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?

It explicitly advises to consider running line_audit_user_menu first if the menu is linked to users, providing when-to-use and an alternative. It also mandates confirm=true to prevent accidental deletion, offering clear usage context.

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