wp_update_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'comprehensive validation and change tracking' but does not elaborate on what validation is performed or how change tracking works. The partial update behavior is well described ('only provided fields will be updated'), but critical details like authentication requirements, error handling for missing posts, and return values are missing.

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 well-structured with a clear behavioral statement followed by a list of examples. It is not overly verbose, though the examples could be condensed by illustrating a pattern rather than listing seven similar cases. The front-loaded behavioral summary is effective.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and partial update behavior well. However, it does not describe the return value (likely the updated post object) or mention possible error conditions. The examples are helpful but do not fully compensate for the lack of output schema or error handling details.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage (all 10 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by providing usage examples for each parameter, showing concrete CLI syntax, and clarifying behavior like using featured_media=0 to remove the image. The statement 'All parameters except ID are optional' further clarifies update semantics beyond the schema.

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 it updates an existing WordPress post with comprehensive validation and change tracking. It specifies that all parameters except ID are optional, which distinguishes it from creation (wp_create_post) and retrieval (wp_get_post) tools. The verb 'Updates' and resource 'existing WordPress post' are specific and non-tautological.

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 does not explicitly provide when/when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to sibling tools. It implicitly differentiates via the verb 'Updates' but lacks direct statements like 'Use this to modify an existing post, not to create a new one.' The usage examples illustrate typical scenarios but do not cover exclusions.

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