wordpress_update_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing page' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't describe permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., invalid pageId). It 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 zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition and front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words or redundancy are present.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it 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?

The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions 'page' but doesn't explain the parameters: it doesn't clarify what 'pageId' is (e.g., numeric ID) or what 'updates' can include (e.g., title, content, status). It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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 'Update an existing page' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('page'), but it's vague about what aspects of a page can be updated. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_create_page' (creation vs. update) but doesn't differentiate from similar update tools like 'wordpress_update_post' or 'wordpress_update_media' in terms of scope or specific functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing page ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'wordpress_update_post' (for posts vs. pages) or 'wordpress_bulk_update_posts' (for bulk operations). Usage is implied only by the tool name.

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