Update WordPress

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=false, but the description adds materially: core files are replaced site-wide, there is no undo point and no test request, and the confirm token guards intent but not reversibility. It also enumerates the three response shapes (already current, success with new_version, updater error). Slightly short of 5 only because it doesn't describe partial-failure or per-file behavior after a mid-run 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by preconditions, side effects, and the call protocol in a sensible order, with zero filler sentences. It is dense — the confirm-token flow is stated twice in close succession — but nothing is expendable given the risk profile.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by describing return values, the already-current case, and error propagation. Combined with capability requirements, DISALLOW_FILE_MODS refusal, and irreversible site-wide file replacement, an agent has everything needed to decide and to call correctly.

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% for the single confirm_token parameter, so the schema carries the syntax burden. The description still adds behavioral meaning beyond it: the token must come from a prior preview call, and the same arguments with that token are what executes the action — reinforcing the two-step contract in the tool's own voice.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Update WordPress core itself') and immediately excludes siblings with '(not plugins or themes)'. It further anchors scope by naming wp_get_update_status as the place offers come from, so an agent can distinguish this from wp_update_plugin/wp_update_theme without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite capability (update_core), the blocking condition (DISALLOW_FILE_MODS), and the informational alternative (wp_get_update_status shows offers). The mandatory preview-then-confirm invocation sequence is spelled out, so the agent knows exactly how to call it rather than guessing.

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