wp_update_menu_item

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' and 'Supports dry-run'; it does not describe side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to unspecified fields. The dry-run support is a useful behavioral hint, but it is already present in the schema and adds no depth beyond that.

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 brief and front-loaded, with no filler: 'Update classic menu item. Supports dry-run.' Both sentences earn their place. However, it is so sparse that it sacrifices usefulness for brevity, preventing a perfect score.

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 16 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and only 6% schema coverage, the description is far too minimal. It omits return values, required-field guidance, classic-vs-block semantics, and any details about the update's effect or error behavior.

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 6%, with only dry_run described in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining any of the 16 parameters, including the required id, url, title, status, or type. This leaves nearly all parameter semantics undocumented.

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 action and resource: 'Update classic menu item.' This clearly separates it from get/create/delete menu item siblings. However, 'classic' is not explained, so there is some ambiguity about what distinguishes a classic menu item from other menu item types.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like wp_create_menu_item, wp_get_menu_item, or wp_delete_menu_item. The dry-run mention hints at a preview workflow, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria.

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