Update an existing WordPress post by changing its title, content, status, excerpt, categories, tags, or featured image using the site and post ID.
Update an existing post
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Post ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| tags | No | Tag IDs | |
| title | No | Post title | |
| status | No | Post status | |
| content | No | Post content (HTML) | |
| excerpt | No | Post excerpt | |
| categories | No | Category IDs | |
| featured_media | No | Featured image ID |
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 disclosure burden, and it largely fails. It does not say whether the update is partial or a full replacement, what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., content/categories omitted), whether 'trash' status deletes the post, or what permissions/auth are needed for a write operation.
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 phrase is front-loaded and wastes no words, but for a 9-parameter mutation tool it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Brevity here comes at the cost of missing guidance, not from efficient editing.
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 a 9-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry much more. It omits partial-update semantics, side effects (status='trash'), required ID sourcing (see list_posts/wp_list_posts), and return behavior.
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 all nine parameters (id, site, tags, title, status, content, excerpt, categories, featured_media) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline of 3.
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 clear verb+resource ('Update an existing post'), so the agent knows it is a mutation on a post object. However it is essentially a restatement of the tool name wp_update_post and offers no differentiation from siblings like wp_update_page, wp_update_cpt_post, or wp_create_post beyond the post/page noun.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as wp_create_post or wp_delete_post. The word 'existing' faintly implies a valid post ID is required, but nothing is stated explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.