wp_users_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that updates are partial (only provided fields change) and mentions permission boundaries. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the tool name, though it does not detail return values or side effects like password hashing, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by key permissions. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: purpose, partial update behavior, and authorization. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but given the simple update nature and the absence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete for an agent to use 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It groups parameters into 'profile fields, password, or roles,' which gives high-level meaning, but it does not explain individual parameters beyond their schema types. The schema property names are self-explanatory for most fields, but the description adds minimal semantic detail about how roles or password updates behave.

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: 'Partially update a user by id.' It specifies the resource (user), the action (update), and the identifier (id). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it can change profile fields, password, or roles, which aligns with its update role versus create/delete/list tools.

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 clear context: this is for updating an existing user by id, and it notes authorization requirements ('Self-update permitted; updating other users requires elevated capabilities'). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the 'partial update' wording and resource-specific nature make usage clear without needing exclusions.

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