Update WordPress media item metadata, including title, alt text, caption, and description, by site and media ID to keep image details accurate and accessible.
Update media item metadata (title, alt text, caption)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Media ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| title | No | Title | |
| caption | No | Caption | |
| alt_text | No | Alt text for images | |
| description | No | Description |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but does not state whether it is a partial/patch update, what permissions are required, or what happens to omitted fields, leaving significant gaps for a write 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?
A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Efficient, though it could have used the space to add routing or behavioral context.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the general intent but omits the required site/id context and update semantics, leaving moderate gaps.
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 the schema already documents all six parameters, establishing the baseline of 3. The description names title, alt text, and caption, which partly maps to the fields but adds little semantic meaning and omits the 'description' parameter entirely.
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?
States a specific verb (update) and resource (media item metadata) with example fields. Distinguishes the operation type, but does not differentiate from the sibling wp_update_media/mcp_update_media variants or clarify how it differs from wp_get_media/wp_delete_media beyond the verb.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as mcp_update_media or wp_get_media. Usage is only implied by the verb 'update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.