wordpress_update_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and specifies the metadata fields clearly, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, return values, and usage context. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate correctly and safely.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'media file metadata (alt text, caption, title)', which hints at updatable fields, but the input schema only has 'mediaId' as a required parameter. The description doesn't explain how to specify the metadata values (e.g., via additional parameters not in schema) or the meaning of mediaId, leaving a gap. Baseline is adjusted due to low coverage but incomplete compensation.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'media file metadata', specifying the fields (alt text, caption, title). It distinguishes from siblings like wordpress_delete_media or wordpress_get_media by focusing on metadata updates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar update tools (e.g., wordpress_update_post).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing media ID), exclusions, or compare to siblings like wordpress_upload_media for new media or wordpress_bulk_update_posts for batch operations. Usage is implied only by the action described.

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