Add Menu Item

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating action (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the admin requirement and explains the two linking modes (page_id vs url). It does not detail side effects or return behavior, but with annotations present, the added context is sufficient.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise list of arguments. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant fluff. It is easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 create operation with 7 params and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, permissions, and argument semantics. It does not describe the response content, but the response_format parameter hints at output options. Minor gap, but overall complete enough.

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 schema already documents every parameter. The description repeats the same information (e.g., parent: 0 = top level) without adding new meaning or clarifying relationships beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with 'Add a single item to a menu,' which clearly identifies the verb (add), resource (menu item), and scope (single item). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wp_create_menu (creates a menu) and wp_update_menu_item (updates an existing item).

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?

The description provides clear usage context: link via page_id or url, nest via parent, and requires admin. It implies it's for creation, not updating, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Since the tool name and context make the creation intent obvious, this is clear but missing explicit alternative guidance.

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