wp_media_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that this is a 'partial update,' which implies PATCH-like semantics (only provided fields are modified). However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as permissions, side effects, error handling, and return format.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes the alternative tool reference without unnecessary detail. Every sentence contributes value.

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 that this is a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It covers the basic purpose and one alternative, but leaves out important context such as update semantics, return value, permission requirements, and possible error conditions. The agent would likely need to infer much of this behavior.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It lists the field names (title, alt_text, caption, description, attached post, slug, status), but these already appear in the schema properties. The description adds no extra detail about formats, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('update') with a clear resource ('media item') and enumerates the fields it affects. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool wp_media_set_alt_text by positioning this as the generic alternative.

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 gives an explicit usage alternative: 'Use wp_media_set_alt_text for the focused alt+caption+description tool when that's all you need.' This tells the agent when to choose a different tool, though it doesn't fully cover when not to use this tool beyond that scenario.

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