wordpress_update_menu_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The 'etc.' hints at additional updatable fields but lacks specifics on constraints or side effects.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted text, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameter specifics, return values, and error conditions, making it incomplete for effective tool use.

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 mentions 'title, URL, order, etc.' which partially explains the 'updates' parameter, but doesn't clarify the 'itemId' parameter or provide details on the structure, format, or constraints of the updates object. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('a menu item'), with examples of what can be updated ('title, URL, order, etc.'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_create_menu_item' and 'wordpress_delete_menu_item' by specifying update functionality, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'wordpress_update_post' beyond the resource type.

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 item ID), when not to use it, or how it compares to similar tools like 'wordpress_update_post' or 'wordpress_update_category' beyond the resource name.

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