Update a post or page

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

With only openWorldHint and idempotentHint supplied, the description adds a meaningful behavioral fact: 'Only supplied fields change,' i.e. true patch semantics consistent with idempotentHint. It does not disclose what a status change does, whether revisions are created, or auth requirements, so it is useful but incomplete for a mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core patch semantic and the key alternative both front-loaded. Nothing to trim.

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 14-parameter mutation with no output schema and no destructive/readOnly annotations, the description is too thin: it never enumerates updatable fields, never states side effects of status/parent/content changes, and leaves 13 optional parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 0% across 14 parameters, so the schema documents none of them and the description names none either. 'Only supplied fields change' conveys the general optional-field contract, but an agent gets no per-parameter meaning (meta, status, template, menu_order, featured_media, etc.) from either source.

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 verb 'Patch' plus the sibling routing to wp_el_set makes the update intent clear, and the title names the resource (post or page). However, the description itself calls the target a generic 'item' rather than naming post/page, forcing the agent to rely on the title for the resource identity.

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?

It gives an explicit alternative for one case ('For a full Elementor rewrite use wp_el_set instead'), which is genuine routing value. But it offers no guidance against the many other closely related siblings (wp_content_create, wp_el_patch, wp_el_build), so the when-to-use picture is only partially drawn.

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