Update WordPress Media Item

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

Annotations already signal destructiveness and idempotency, and the description adds valuable semantics such as passing an empty string to clear alt_text, post=0 to unattach, and the return value. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the added edge-case behavior improves transparency beyond the flags.

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 purpose, then a concise arg list and return note. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the arg list partially duplicates the schema, making it slightly less lean than ideal.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key operational details (clearing alt_text, unattaching, response_format) and states the return value. It lacks error handling or workflow guidance, but annotations and parameter details make it sufficiently complete for invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and all parameters have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter meanings but adds minor emphasis (required id, grouping of optional fields) without introducing new semantic information.

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 clearly states 'Update metadata on an existing media item' and enumerates specific fields (title, alt text, caption, description, attachment target), distinguishing it from sibling tools like wp_upload_media, wp_delete_media, and wp_get_media_item. The common-use note further reinforces the scope.

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 a clear context with 'Most common use: backfilling alt_text on images that don't have it,' which implies when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., wp_bulk_update_media_alt_text for bulk updates) or state when not to use, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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