wp_update_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Update media item metadata', which implies mutation but does not disclose permissions, side effects, idempotency, or what happens to existing metadata. For a write tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It could include the 'description' field and differentiate from siblings without being overly long, so it is not optimally balanced.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and is a mutation operation, the description is very thin. It does not explain return values, error states, or any behavioral traits like partial updates or required permissions, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists three of the four optional fields (title, alt text, caption) but omits 'description', adding partial value but not fully aligning with the schema. It does not clarify that only provided fields are updated.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'media item metadata', which is clear. However, the sibling list includes another tool named 'mcp_update_media', and the description does not differentiate this tool from that one, reducing clarity. The description also omits the 'description' field from the list of metadata, which is part of the schema.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mcp_update_media', or when not to use it. There are no prerequisites or context indications.

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