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

Adds behavior far beyond the annotations: partial-patch semantics ('nur gesetzte Felder werden überschrieben'), concrete error payloads for invalid_id and invalid_post_type, and the 60s timeout caveat that the write may have succeeded despite an error. That retry-safety warning is exactly the context destructiveHint/openWorldHint do not convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action and partial-update rule, then layers parameter and failure-mode detail. The error-string blocks are dense but each carries actionable information; only the verbose error-literal formatting is slightly heavier than needed.

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 10-param mutation tool with an output schema, it covers identity, type, workspace scoping, and failure recovery, so an agent can call it safely. It stops short of describing what the writable fields accept (e.g. content format, whether categories/tags replace or merge), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it does well for the two most error-prone params: post_id (numeric vs. site-editor string ID like 'twentytwentyfive//header') and post_type (enumerated valid values plus custom-post-type fallback). The remaining seven content fields (title, content, status, slug, excerpt, categories, tags) are left unaddressed, though their names are largely self-explanatory.

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 ('Bestehenden WordPress-Beitrag/Seite/Vorlage aktualisieren') and adds the crucial scope qualifier that only set fields are overwritten, which separates it cleanly from wp_create_post. The post_id/post_type grammar further pins down exactly which entity types it operates on.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: it is for updating existing entities, and on wp_timeout/wp_unreachable the agent must verify with wp_get_post before retrying. It does not explicitly say to use wp_create_post for new posts or name other alternatives, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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