Update Menu Item

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed'), permission requirements ('Requires admin'), and the return value ('Returns: the updated menu item'). It also contrasts with the destructive effects of rebuilding, providing rich behavioral context that aligns with the idempotent and non-destructive hints.

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 opens with a clear purpose sentence, follows with a concise paragraph explaining when to use the tool, and lists parameters compactly (combining multiple fields into one line). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it well-structured and appropriately sized.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description still covers all essential context: purpose, usage guidance, permissions, partial update behavior, parameter list, and return value. It compensates for the missing output schema by explicitly stating what is returned, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters. The description's Args block largely mirrors schema descriptions (e.g., mutual exclusivity, 0 = top level, item_id source) without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'a single existing menu item' and narrows scope with 'IN PLACE', listing exact operations (rename, repoint, re-nest, reorder). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool wp_build_menu by warning against rebuilding, making the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool over an alternative: 'Prefer this over wp_build_menu for small edits.' It explains why rebuilding is problematic (regenerates EVERY item ID, breaks references, leaves orphaned rows) and adds a prerequisite ('Requires admin'). This is a clear, actionable usage guideline.

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