wp_update_menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Supports dry-run.' This adds a small amount of insight, though dry_run is already described in the schema as 'Preview changes without writing.' It does not explain whether unspecified fields are reset, what permissions are required, whether the update is reversible, or what happens on failure.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and the dry-run capability in a short second sentence. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing, though more detail could be added without harming conciseness.

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?

This tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and very low schema coverage, yet the description provides almost no contextual information. An agent would not know how to identify the menu via 'ref', what each field does, or what a successful update returns. The description is far too sparse for the complexity involved.

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 only 14%, with just dry_run documented. The description does not explain the meaning of 'ref', 'auto_add', 'locations', or the other parameters, nor does it clarify how these fields map to a classic menu update. It fails to compensate for the sparse schema documentation.

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 and resource: 'Update classic menu.' This clearly indicates mutation of an existing menu and distinguishes it from creation/deletion tools. It does not explicitly differentiate from wp_update_menu_item, but the resource noun 'menu' provides enough initial clarity.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what makes a menu 'classic' versus other menu types. The tool name and brief description are not enough to help an agent decide between this and related menu tools such as wp_update_menu_item or wp_create_menu.

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