Update a menu item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a non-destructive modification. The description adds the fields that can be changed (label, target, nesting, position), which is useful context, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or any prerequisite conditions beyond that. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 reflects the partial added value.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and key scoping fields. It has no redundant detail and effectively communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention return behavior, but that is not required without an output schema. It omits context about the WordPress menu system or any operational notes, relying heavily on the schema. The description is sufficient for a basic call but leaves room for richer guidance.

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 100% with each of the 10 parameters individually documented. The description's phrase 'label, target, nesting or position' loosely maps to parameters like title, url, parent, and menu_order, but it adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema carries the semantic load, this is a baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a menu item'), and enumerates the changeable aspects: label, target, nesting, or position. This clearly conveys the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like add_menu_item, delete_menu_item, and reorder_menu_items, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 does not mention add_menu_item for creating, delete_menu_item for removing, or reorder_menu_items for ordering, nor any conditions that would make one more appropriate. The agent must infer usage context from the name and parameters alone.

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