wordpress_update_media

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 only lists updatable fields. It does not explain what happens when fields are omitted (despite null defaults), valid values for 'status', what format 'post' expects (ID vs slug), or whether changes are immediate/reversible.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds minor noise (likely implementation metadata), but otherwise every word serves the purpose of explaining the tool's capability without redundancy.

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 9-parameter update tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the 'what' (updatable fields) but leaves significant gaps on the 'how' (parameter formats, valid values) and 'what happens' (behavior, side effects). It meets minimum viability but requires more detail for the complexity involved.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the semantic purpose of optional fields (title, description, slug, etc.), but fails to document the required parameters 'site' (expected format: domain? URL?) and 'media_id', or valid enum values for 'status' and the expected format for 'post'.

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 specific action ('Update media metadata') and enumerates exactly which fields can be modified (title, description, slug, alt text, caption, status, associated post). It effectively distinguishes this from siblings like wordpress_delete_media (deletion) and wordpress_upload_media_from_url (creation) by focusing on metadata modification of existing media.

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?

While the description implies this is for existing media via the 'Update' verb and the media_id parameter requirement, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus creating new media, or prerequisites like needing a valid media_id. It states what can be done but not when or why to choose this tool.

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