Update an existing WordPress user by ID, changing email, password, first name, or last name for a specified site.
Update an existing user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | User ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| No | Email address | ||
| password | No | New password | |
| last_name | No | Last name | |
| first_name | No | First name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "id"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does not say whether this is a partial or full update, what permissions are required, whether a password change has side effects (e.g., session invalidation), or what the response contains. 'Existing' hints that the id must already resolve, but for a six-parameter mutation tool that is thin.
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 short sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, which is good. But at four words it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, so it earns no more than a middling score.
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 is a mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must supply the missing behavioral context. It fails to cover required permissions, partial-update semantics, password side effects, or any distinction from the duplicate wp_update_user sibling.
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 (id, site, email, password, first_name, last_name) is already documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics such as partial-update behavior or which fields are optional versus ignored.
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 clear verb and resource ('Update an existing user'), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it offers nothing to separate it from near-identical siblings such as wp_update_user, mcp_create_user, or mcp_update_user_meta, leaving the agent unable to tell which user-update tool to pick.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives appear anywhere in the description. The agent gets no signal about when this tool is preferable to wp_update_user, mcp_change_user_role, or mcp_update_user_meta.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.