content.update_fields.v1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about side effects, reversibility, field overwrite semantics, error behavior, or the return payload. It does not even mention that fields are replaced wholesale or merged incrementally. This is a mutating operation with zero safety disclosure, 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 short sentence that is efficient and unambiguous. However, its brevity is not true conciseness but rather under-specification. It earns a mid-range score for not wasting words while failing to convey necessary operational detail.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool operates on a complex nested object ('fields' with additionalProperties=true) that is entirely undocumented. The description does not explain field format, post state requirements, or overwrite semantics. For a mutating WordPress-content tool with no annotations and a free-form nested parameter, this level of detail is inadequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only minimal parameter names in the schema, the description adds essentially no meaning about either parameter. It does not explain what keys/values 'fields' expects (ACF field key vs. field name format, nested structure), nor what format post_id should take. The description does not compensate for the near-total lack of schema documentation.

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'), the resource ('ACF fields'), and the target ('a WordPress post/page'). It identifies the operation and subject accurately. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like update_acf_fields (which appears to be a near-duplicate) or provide scope specifics, so it stops short of a 5.

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 such as update_acf_fields, seo.set_meta.v1, or content.publish.v1. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., post must be a published/trashed state, ACF plugin required), no exclusions, and no alternative tooling referenced. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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