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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description goes beyond that by disclosing reversibility ('A previous version is kept, so action="restore" rolls the navigation back') and by mapping destructive operations (remove/delete) to specific actions, which the annotations cannot express.

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 capabilities and action list come first, followed by parameter guidance, then the two-mode explanation and the restore note – a logical front-loaded order. It is somewhat long, but each paragraph maps to a distinct concern (capability, actions, linking, menus vs block themes, rollback) and earns its space.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the action enum, both schema variants, linkage sources and rollback semantics for a 16-parameter tool. A handful of parameters (name, title, target, location, position, site_url) remain unaddressed, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it documents action values, page_id vs url linking, and the classic (menu_id/item_id/parent_id/order) versus block (nav_id/path/parent/order) parameter sets with a concrete path example. Gaps remain for name, title, target, location, position and site_url, which are left undocumented.

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 ('Edit a WordPress navigation menu') and then enumerates the concrete operations (add, rename, relink, reorder, remove, create, assign). This distinctively separates it from siblings like wordpress_menus (read) and wordpress_edit_page_design, so an agent can identify it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance ('Use wordpress_menus first') and explains the branch condition that selects between classic menus (menu_id/item_id) and block themes (nav_id/path). It does not spell out when not to use it or name a fully equivalent alternative, but the prerequisite routing is clear.

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