wordpress_update_settings

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. The word 'update' implies mutation, but the description does not mention side effects, permission requirements, whether settings are merged or replaced, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 parenthetical examples. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no redundant or verbose language. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations, an empty input schema, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain update semantics, required fields, or behavior on partial updates. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool safely or effectively.

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 is empty (0 parameters), but the description lists plausible fields (title, description, timezone) that give some semantic hint about what can be updated. While it doesn't enumerate all possible settings or parameter types, the baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the examples provide minimal 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 action ('Update') and the resource ('site settings'), with examples (title, description, timezone) that clarify scope. It distinguishes from read-only tools like wordpress_get_settings by the 'update' verb, but does not explicitly differentiate from closely related mutation tools like wordpress_update_option.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wordpress_update_option or wordpress_set_og_tags. The description only states what the tool does, providing no context for selection among the many sibling tools.

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