WordPress: Update page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful scope beyond that by naming the mutable surface (title, content, status, slug, parent, featured image, meta including Yoast fields). However, it never explains the destructive implications – e.g. that supplied content replaces existing content, or what happens to fields left null – which is the most important thing to know for a destructive 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the field list; there is no filler. The only removable element is the unexplained "[UNIFIED]" tag.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the definition covers the what but not the how: no return-value expectation, no note on partial updates vs. full replacement, no auth/permission requirements, and no meta serialization format. It is adequate to identify the tool but leaves an agent likely to call it incorrectly on the first attempt.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does partially deliver by mapping human field names to parameters (title, content, status, slug, parent, featured image, post meta). It adds no format or value semantics, though: acceptable status values, whether parent is an ID or slug (schema types it as string), and how meta is encoded given it is a string rather than an object. The 'site' and 'page_id' required parameters are not addressed at all.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing WordPress page") and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as wordpress_update_post, wordpress_update_post_seo, or wordpress_specialist_wp_bulk_post_update, and the "[UNIFIED]" prefix is unexplained jargon that adds no clarity.

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?

Usage is only implied by "update an existing WordPress page" – there is no statement of when to prefer this over wordpress_update_post, wordpress_update_category, or the bulk/specialist variants, and no prerequisites (permissions, page must exist). With this many overlapping update siblings, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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