fulfillment_update_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses the exact mechanism (WordPress's own upgrader, same code path as one-click wp-admin update), the mutation being applied, the returned fields { applied, from, to }, and that the action is audit-logged. It does not address reversibility/rollback, permissions, or whether the site is briefly unavailable during install.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the mechanism, then the result contract. No filler and nothing an agent must dig for.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-shape information ({ applied, from, to }) and confirms audit logging. The notable gap is safety context: no statement about failure handling, rollback, or interruption during install.

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?

There is a single parameter ('site') and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('Site id (see list_sites)'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no further syntax or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Install a pending cvrt-order-fulfillment update') and scopes it to pending updates, making it distinguishable from the read-only sibling fulfillment_update_check. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the differentiation is implied 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 word 'pending' implies a precondition (something must first report an available update, i.e. fulfillment_update_check), but the description never states when to call this versus checking, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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