Wordpress Update Page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are left untouched or nulled), required capabilities, or reversibility. The single word 'existing' is the only implicit precondition offered for an 11-parameter mutation tool.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, which is a virtue. But its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision, leaving essential context unstated.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the agent still lacks mutation semantics and prerequisite information needed to call it safely.

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 every parameter (date, slug, title, content, status, etc.) is already documented in the schema with its own 'New X' description. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing WordPress page'), making the core action unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like wordpress_update_post or wordpress_update_media, so it lands just short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wordpress_create_page or wordpress_update_post, nor any stated preconditions beyond the implicit 'existing' page. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.

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