bricks_wp_update_post

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

With no annotations available, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The important note 'Only sends changed fields' reveals a partial-update (PATCH) behavior beyond what the name alone implies, helping an agent avoid the assumption that unspecified fields are reset. It lacks explicit statements about return values or errors, but the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 three short, non-redundant sentences. It leads with the core action, follows with an important mutation detail, and ends with a scope extension. Every sentence adds value and nothing is wasted.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary action, the partial-update trait, and CPT support, which is largely sufficient to start. However, it omits any mention of the expected return value (e.g., whether the updated post is returned) and does not describe fallback or error behavior when required fields are missing. Those gaps keep it from being fully complete, but the simple scope keeps it at a 'minimum viable' level.

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 parameters are fully documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail; 'post_type' is described in both the schema and description, but the description merely reiterates the CPT capability rather than being needed to understand any 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 first sentence 'Update an existing WordPress post' gives a specific verb and resource. The additional phrase 'Works on custom post types via post_type' clarifies scope beyond standard posts, and the resource distinction distinguishes it from the create sibling (bricks_wp_create_post) without requiring 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?

The phrase 'existing' implies this tool should be used on already-created posts, and the CPT note extends its applicability. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over alternatives such as bricks_wp_create_post or bricks_update_page, nor does it rule out usage on non-post content. Usage is only implied rather than stated.

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