wordpress_create_menu_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Add an item' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, side effects (e.g., menu cache invalidation), or what happens on failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable. Every word ('Add', 'item', 'navigation menu') earns its place by contributing essential meaning without redundancy.

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 (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual elements: what the tool returns (e.g., new item ID), error conditions, dependencies (e.g., existing menu), or detailed parameter usage. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, meaning neither parameter ('title', 'menus') has any documentation in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool name—it doesn't explain what 'title' represents (e.g., display text), what 'menus' expects (e.g., menu ID or name), or any other parameters like URL or parent item. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Add an item') and target ('to a navigation menu'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'wordpress_create_menu' (creates the menu itself) and 'wordpress_delete_menu_item' (removes items). However, it doesn't specify what type of item (e.g., page link, custom link, category) or the exact scope, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing menu), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'wordpress_update_menu_item' (modifies existing items) or 'wordpress_assign_menu_to_location' (assigns menus to theme locations). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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