WordPress: Update menu item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates destructively; the description adds essentially nothing beyond that. It does not explain the semantics of the nullable optional fields (whether a null means 'leave unchanged' or 'clear the value'), which is exactly the behavior an agent needs to avoid silent data loss on a destructive update, nor permission/auth requirements.

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?

Two compact sentences with the action front-loaded and zero filler. The brevity is well-structured, though it is achieved partly by omitting information rather than by efficient phrasing.

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?

For a destructive six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no documented parameters, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine partial-update semantics, required targeting, or the effect of passing null without reading the raw schema.

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% across six parameters, so the description must carry the load. It names four of them (title, url, parent, menu_order) but omits site and item_id, the two required identifiers, and it gives no hint about the anyOf/null defaults on five optional fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing menu item') and enumerates the mutable fields, which lets an agent distinguish it from create_menu_item at a glance. It does not differentiate from near neighbors such as wordpress_specialist_wp_menu_set or the bulk update tools, so the sibling routing is left to inference.

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?

'Update an existing menu item' implies the precondition that the item must already exist, which mildly separates it from wordpress_create_menu_item. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the required site/item_id targeting, and no pointer to the specialist or bulk alternatives for multi-item changes.

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