Patch widgets in place

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description's valuable addition beyond structured data is the merge contract ('Settings are deep-merged into the node'), which tells the agent existing keys are preserved rather than replaced. It still omits reversibility/snapshot behavior and the finality implied by the confirm gate.

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 behavior and the path/source constraint front-loaded ahead of the merge detail. Every sentence adds information.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and sparse schema coverage, the description covers the mechanism well but glosses over the snapshot parameter (which determines whether the patch is undoable) and the meaning of the mandatory confirm token, which an agent needs to reason about risk.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate; it explains the path format ('0/1/2') and its source via wp_el_get, and the deep-merge semantics of settings. However, post_id and snapshot (default true, suggesting undo coverage) receive no description anywhere, leaving a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update settings on specific nodes') plus a distinguishing trait ('without rewriting the page'), which implicitly separates it from wp_el_set/wp_el_build. It does not name the sibling alternative explicitly, so it falls 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 tells the agent where paths originate ('Paths come from wp_el_get') and the accepted formats, which is genuine usage context. But it never states when to prefer this over wp_el_set, wp_el_build, or wp_el_restore, nor when patching is inappropriate.

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