wordpress_update_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects, permissions, and reversibility. It only says 'update metadata' without noting whether it overwrites existing metadata, requires specific capabilities, or is idempotent.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded but somewhat under-specified, though it earns points for economy.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete: it fails to explain how to provide metadata fields (since they are absent from the schema), what the response looks like, or how it differs from other media tools. The mismatch between description and schema leaves the agent without critical information.

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?

The schema only defines mediaId with no description, and the description mentions alt text, caption, and title—fields that are not represented in the schema. This provides no way to specify the metadata values and actively misleads the agent about available parameters.

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 the action ('update'), the resource ('media file metadata'), and specific fields ('alt text, caption, title'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_media, upload_media, and delete_media.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_featured_image or update_post. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or any use case context.

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