hosting_updateWordPressCoreV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the asynchronous nature of the operation, but lacks details on potential destructive impact, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with three focused sentences covering purpose, identifier source, and async behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the core action, identifier retrieval, and async queuing. Missing details about response format or error handling, but these are not critical for a queued operation.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description repeats the software identifier guidance already present in the schema and does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema descriptions. No significant value added.

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 'WordPress core' with scope 'for the specified installation'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like hosting_installWordPressV1 and hosting_listAvailableWordPressCoreUpdatesV1 by specifying the action type.

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 clear context on how to obtain the software identifier via a GET endpoint and indicates two update modes (minor or specific version). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide 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.