wp_update_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only says 'Update' and lists fields. It does not mention whether partial updates are allowed, what happens if the user ID does not exist, whether permissions are required, or what the return value is. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the relevant field categories. It avoids unnecessary wording and is easy to parse, though it could have included slightly more operational guidance without becoming verbose.

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 tool mutates data, has no annotations, and has no output schema, so the description alone must provide sufficient context. It explains what can be updated but not the effects of a partial update, error behavior for invalid IDs, required permissions, or what response the agent should expect. This leaves important gaps for a 6-parameter mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter clearly. The description adds a helpful grouping by calling email, role, and name fields, but it does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing WordPress user' and enumerates the editable fields ('email, role, name fields'). This clearly distinguishes it from read-only tools like wp_get_user and wp_list_users, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from wp_create_user beyond the word 'existing'.

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 'existing user' implies this tool is for modifying an already-created user rather than creating one, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit statement about when to choose this tool over wp_create_user or other user-related tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as the user needing to exist.

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