Change WP Version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action and target, but fails to mention potential side effects (e.g., downtime, prerequisites, reversibility) or any operational details. This is a notable gap 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 one concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan. It loses a point for being too terse to convey essential context, but as a pure structural matter it is efficient.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must supply context. It only states the basic operation without explaining the process, expected outcomes, error conditions, or any constraints (e.g., valid versions, whether the change is synchronous). This is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'version' and 'website_uid' are minimally described in the schema, and the description does not explain valid version formats, how to obtain them, or any relationships between parameters. Still, no compensation is required given the high schema coverage.

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 changes the WordPress core version and scopes it to Agency Plan websites, which distinguishes it from generic WordPress update tools like wp_update_core. The verb 'change' and resource 'WordPress core version' are specific, though it could more explicitly contrast with alternative 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wp_update_core or agency_wp_versions. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without any exclusion criteria or contextual hints.

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