wp_update_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden and does well: it discloses side effects (role replacement, password invalidation), refusal of unknown or empty fields, and dry-run vs. apply behavior. This gives the agent an accurate model of what will happen.

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 dense but every sentence adds critical operational detail. There is no redundant or irrelevant content, and the information is well-structured.

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 covers behavioral expectations, defaults, permissions, and production safeguards. It does not describe the return value or error conditions, but since there is no output schema, some output guidance would have been helpful for full completeness.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions, but the tool description compensates for fields, dry_run, and allow_prod. install and user_id are not explicitly explained, though their names are strongly self-explanatory and user_id is clearly the target user. Overall, key parameters are sufficiently covered.

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 tool changes an existing user's fields, which distinguishes it from create/delete/list user sibling tools. The verb and target resource are unambiguous.

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 provides concrete usage constraints: field allowlist, username non-editable, roles replacement, password reset behavior, empty-fields refusal, dry_run default, and allow_prod requirement for production writes. It does not explicitly contrast with wp_create_user, but the intent is clear from the wording.

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