wordpress_delete_menu_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens to associated data (e.g., child menu items). The 'force' parameter hints at optional behavior, but its effect is unexplained. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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: 'Delete a menu item'. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, 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 (destructive mutation with two parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like parameter meanings, behavioral implications (e.g., permanence, permissions), or expected outcomes. For a deletion tool, this leaves critical gaps that could lead to misuse.

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 ('itemId', 'force') is documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'itemId' refers to (e.g., numeric ID of a menu item) or what 'force' does (e.g., bypass confirmation, delete permanently). With two required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent guessing.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a menu item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_delete_menu' (which deletes entire menus) by specifying 'menu item' as the target, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools like 'wordpress_delete_post' or 'wordpress_delete_comment'.

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. While the description implies it's for deleting menu items, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the item ID), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk deletions), or direct alternatives like 'wordpress_bulk_delete_posts' for other content types. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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