wordpress_update_menu_itemUpdate a WordPress menu item's title, URL, order, or other properties by specifying the item ID and the changes to apply.
Update a menu item (title, URL, order, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes | ||
| updates | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes 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. It says 'Update a menu item' and lists example fields, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, error behavior, or return value. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral information.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose with useful examples, making it appropriately concise.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the update semantics (merge vs replace), expected return value, or error cases. For a simple tool with only two parameters, it could have provided more detail.
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 description must compensate. It provides examples of what can go in the 'updates' object (title, URL, order, etc.), giving partial meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the structure of 'updates' fully or the semantics of 'itemId'.
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 tool's function: 'Update a menu item (title, URL, order, etc.)'. The verb 'update' and resource 'menu item' are specific, and the examples distinguish it from sibling tools like create/delete/get menu items.
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 implies usage for modifying an existing menu item, and the name distinguishes it from create/delete alternatives. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.