wp_update_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose mutation and the partial-update behavior ('Only provide the fields you want to change'), which is valuable. However, it omits permission requirements, failure modes, and response shape, which are important for a write operation with no annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the primary action and then provides the essential usage rule efficiently.

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?

The description is sufficient for identifying the tool and its core update behavior, and the schema fully covers parameters. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns, and type-specific behavior (e.g., WooCommerce product fields) is left implicit.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so all 15 parameters already have individual descriptions. The description adds the key partial-update context but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Update') and resource ('existing WordPress post, page, or product'), distinguishing it from create/get/list/delete content tools in the sibling set. The word 'existing' reinforces that it is not for creation.

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 phrase 'Only provide the fields you want to change' is a useful usage instruction for partial updates. It implies this tool is for modifying already-created content, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as wp_create_content or state exclusions.

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