Update a WordPress page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a POST (mutation) and explains the partial-update behavior: only provided fields are sent, omitted fields are left unchanged. This is valuable context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, or response format, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core action and endpoint, then add a single critical behavioral note. No filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplar of concise writing.

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 an update tool with 5 parameters, all documented in the schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation and its update semantics. It does not mention the return value (e.g., the updated page object), but that is not strictly required. It also omits authentication and error details, which are common to WordPress REST API tools. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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% – each parameter (id, meta, title, status, content) has its own description in the schema. The tool description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond that; it only states a global behavior (partial update). Therefore, the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds minimal extra parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Update an existing page' with a specific HTTP method and endpoint. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_pages, get_page, and create_page, which cover list, read, and create operations respectively. The verb 'Update' and resource 'existing page' are unambiguous.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need to modify an existing page, and it notes that omitted fields remain unchanged, which is a key usage rule. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the contrast with siblings is implicit. Clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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