wp_update_page_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the tool destructively replaces the entire page content and instructs the agent to read the original first, which is valuable. However, it does not mention reversibility, auth requirements, side effects, or the dry_run preview option, leaving some behavioral 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the follow-up instruction earns its place. This is an example of efficient, well-structured documentation.

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 a simple 3-parameter mutation tool with fully documented schema fields and no output schema, the description covers the key operational requirement: read before replacing and pass full content. It does not describe return values or explicit side effects, but the read-first warning and full-replacement emphasis make it sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces that content must be the full replacement, but it adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema provides; the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Replace') and a precise resource ('entire raw content of a WordPress page'), so an agent knows exactly what this tool does. The 'page' versus 'post' framing differentiates it from wp_update_post_content, and 'entire raw content' separates it from wp_update_page.

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?

It gives clear usage context: read the page first and pass the full replacement content, implying this is for full overwrites rather than partial edits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the page-scoped resource and raw-content emphasis provide enough guidance for correct selection.

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