wordpress_update_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Update an existing WordPress post' and lists parameters, but does not explain that it likely performs a partial update (only fields provided are changed), what happens if the post does not exist, authentication requirements, or error handling. This is insufficient for a mutating tool without annotation support.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a parameter list, and a return note. It is front-loaded with the key action and avoids fluff. The parameter lines are short but cover each argument, making it easy to scan. Slight redundancy in the wording of each line ('New title' vs 'title') could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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?

This tool has 11 parameters and no annotations, making it complex. The description lacks important context: it does not explain partial vs full update behavior, required fields beyond post_id, whether certain fields are mutually exclusive, any validation constraints, or the nature of the returned 'updated post details'. Given the output schema is not shown, the description's return note is vague and insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With a schema description coverage of 0%, the description's Args list adds meaningful semantics for all 11 parameters, e.g., 'post_id: Post ID to update' and 'categories: New category IDs'. This compensates for the schema's lack of human-readable explanations, though some entries are terse and could include more detail (e.g., formats or allowed values).

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 'Update an existing WordPress post', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wordpress_create_post and wordpress_delete_post, and also implies post-specific behavior vs updates for pages, comments, or 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to modify an existing post) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to consider. It does not mention that for new posts one should use wordpress_create_post or that for pages one should use wordpress_update_page, so the context is clear but not exhaustive.

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