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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not say what happens to omitted fields (partial vs. full replace), whether locations are appended or replaced, or what permissions are required.

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 with the operation front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere rather than being a model of dense information.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations about return values, the description should at least clarify partial-update semantics and the site_id targeting rule. As written, an agent cannot tell whether omitting 'name' or 'locations' clears them or leaves them untouched.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description actively introduces a discrepancy: it claims 'slug' is updatable while the schema exposes no slug property (and sets additionalProperties=false). It also omits site_id, which the schema flags as optional only when a single site is connected.

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 specific verb (Update) and resource (WordPress navigation menu) and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like wp_get_menu, wp_list_menus, or wp_add_menu_item, which an agent must infer from the names alone.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as wp_get_menu (to read before updating) or wp_list_menu_locations (to discover valid locations). The agent is left to infer the workflow entirely.

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