wordpress_update_media

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of revealing behaviors. It only says 'Update' which implies mutation but does not disclose potential side effects, whether changes are reversible, if permissions are required, or if there are any constraints (e.g., only certain fields can be updated). The description lacks this depth.

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 concise and structured with an Args/Returns list, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized, with no wasteful sentences, though it could be improved by adding usage context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given that the tool has 5 parameters (with 0% schema coverage) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide the behavioral context or parameter semantics needed for a full understanding. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but other aspects are lacking.

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 must compensate. It lists parameter names but provides no additional meaning beyond their names. For example, it doesn't explain the expected format or constraints for title, alt_text, caption, or description. This leaves the agent under-informed about parameter semantics.

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 states 'Update WordPress media item metadata' which clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (media item), and distinguishes it from siblings like upload, delete, and get media. However, it doesn't mention the specific fields beyond listing them in the Args, which is sufficient.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to update metadata versus re-upload media or when updates are irreversible. It doesn't state prerequisites like the need for an existing media item or the context of use.

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