wordpress_update_user

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. It states 'Update user information' which implies a mutation, but fails to describe critical traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., password changes logging users out), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies user data.

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, front-loading the core action and key fields. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, avoiding unnecessary elaboration while conveying essential information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and two parameters (one being a nested object), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, return values, and full parameter semantics, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, with two parameters (userId and updates) undocumented in the schema. The description mentions fields like name, email, roles, and password, which partially clarifies the 'updates' object content, but doesn't explain the 'userId' parameter or provide format details (e.g., numeric ID). It adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'user information', specifying key fields like name, email, roles, and password. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_create_user' (creation vs. update) and 'wordpress_delete_user' (deletion vs. update), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'wordpress_update_post' beyond the resource type.

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 user ID), exclusions, or comparisons to other user-related tools like 'wordpress_assign_role' or 'wordpress_add_capability', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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