wordpress_assign_menu_to_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Assign' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires admin permissions, if it overwrites existing assignments, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero waste—it states the core action without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded, making it easy to parse 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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral aspects, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'location' and 'menuId' implicitly but doesn't explain what they are (e.g., location as a string identifier like 'primary', menuId as a numeric ID from menu creation). It adds minimal meaning beyond the bare parameter names, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 the action ('Assign') and the target ('a menu to a theme location'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_create_menu' or 'wordpress_get_menu_locations' by focusing on assignment rather than creation or retrieval. However, it doesn't specify what 'theme location' means (e.g., header, footer), which keeps it from being fully specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing menu and theme location), exclusions, or related tools like 'wordpress_get_menu_locations' for checking available locations. The description is standalone with no context for application.

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