Wordpress Edit Page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a targeted source-text replacement rather than a whole-document overwrite, but says nothing about permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens when the text is absent or duplicated (the latter only hinted at in the schema).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core mechanism is stated first and the qualifier follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully described, so return values and parameter details are covered. For an unannotated mutation tool, however, the description should at least acknowledge that edits are destructive and what failure conditions look like, which it omits.

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 100%, so page_id, old_text, new_text, replace_all, and expected_version are already well documented, including the exactly-once matching constraint. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (replace text in a WordPress page's source) and adds a distinguishing mechanism ('without resending the page') that separates it from full-page siblings like update_page. It stops short of naming the sibling outright, so the distinction is inferred rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'without resending the page' implies the tool is for surgical edits rather than full-page rewrites, which hints at when to prefer it over wordpress_update_page. However, it never states the alternative or the condition that selects it, leaving routing to inference.

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