wp_update_post_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that existing content is entirely overwritten (not merged), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive/reversible, any permission requirements, or the availability of the dry_run parameter as a preview/safety mechanism.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with fully described parameters, the description plus schema covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It would be more complete with a note on return behavior or exclusions, but nothing structurally necessary is missing.

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 parameter definitions already document id, content, and dry_run meaningfully. The main description adds no parameter-level nuance, but the schema is sufficient; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Replace'), a clear resource ('the entire raw content of a WordPress post'), and explicitly scopes the operation to full-content replacement. This distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like wp_update_post or wp_update_page_content without requiring schema inspection.

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 on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as wp_update_post, wp_update_page_content, or wp_elementor_update_shortcode_content. Applicable context must be inferred entirely from the name and the word 'content'.

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