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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the partial-update semantics (unmentioned fields are left alone), which is real value, but it says nothing about required capabilities, whether status transitions publish live content, or reversibility.

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 short sentences with the action stated first and the key operational constraint second. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the most important mental model (partial update) but omits target-site behavior when multiple sites are connected, permission/auth requirements, and any note on the status enum's effect on a published page.

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 71%, so most parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the optionality/partial-update principle, not per-parameter meaning, and omissions like the undocumented status and menu_order fields are not compensated for.

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 WordPress page'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it offers no differentiation from the many closely named siblings such as wp_update_post, wp_update_custom_post, or wp_update_category, so the agent must infer that 'page' means the WordPress page post type specifically.

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 instruction 'Only provide the fields you want to change' is a genuine invocation guideline implying a partial/merge update, which usefully sets expectations. But it gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no routing toward alternatives like wp_get_page (to inspect first) or wp_update_post for other post types.

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