update_page

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

The description mentions that WordPress auto-saves revisions, making edits rollback-safe, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose any destructive potential, required permissions, or error scenarios. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and offers moderate transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 5 parameters (2 required), no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is brief. It covers the update action and safety (revisions) but lacks details on return values, prerequisites, or failure modes. Adequate but not complete.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that omitting the status field keeps the current state. However, it does not describe the id, site, title, or content parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but is insufficient for all parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'existing page', listing the editable fields (title, content, status). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_page and get_page.

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 description provides a hint about omitting status to keep current state but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_page. No clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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