wp_elementor_update_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It richly discloses the data structure (section/column/widget hierarchy, elType, widgetType, id format, settings, elements array). However, it never states that this is a full-replacement overwrite operation, what happens to the existing tree, error behavior, or permission requirements. The structural detail is strong, but mutation semantics are inferred rather than stated.

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 front-loaded with its purpose, followed by the payload structure and finally the sequencing guidance. It is efficiently written with no filler or redundancy. The dense structural explanation, while valuable, is packed tightly into the middle of the paragraph, which slightly reduces scannability.

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 complex tool with nested objects and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the input payload structure thoroughly. However, it omits what a successful call returns, the overwrite/destructive nature of the update, and validation constraints. For a tool this complex, the missing return behavior and mutation semantics are notable gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema for the 'elements' parameter by detailing the exact element hierarchy, required fields (elType, id, settings, elements), id format (8-char hex), and valid widgetType values. This substantially enriches the 'arrays of sections' schema text.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update the Elementor data for a page/post.' This clearly identifies the tool's action and target. It implicitly differentiates from wp_elementor_get_page (read vs. update) but never distinguishes itself from the generic sibling wp_update_content, leaving some ambiguity about which update tool handles Elementor-specific data.

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 gives one actionable directive: 'Always read the page first with wp_elementor_get_page to understand the current structure.' This is useful sequencing guidance but does not explain when to prefer this tool over wp_update_content, nor when NOT to use it, nor any prerequisites beyond reading first.

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