wp_update_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates that an update happens and how the target is identified. It does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior when the post is missing, side effects on omitted fields, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It places the action and target first, and every word adds information.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It omits return behavior, failure modes, permissions, field semantics, and any relationship to the many similar sibling update tools.

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 only 14%, so the description needed to compensate, but it adds only 'by ID or slug' for ref and the generic notion of 'selected fields.' It does not explain the meaning or format of most of the 14 parameters; names are guessable but not documented.

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 action ('Update selected fields'), a clear resource ('WordPress post'), and the two allowed target modes ('by ID or slug'). This is enough to distinguish it from read/create/delete siblings such as wp_get_post, wp_create_post, and wp_delete_post.

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 no guidance about when to prefer this tool over close siblings like wp_update_post_content or wp_update_page, and no when-not-to-use conditions. The phrase 'selected fields' weakly implies partial updates, but no explicit context or alternatives are provided.

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