wp_update_widget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it mainly restates the obvious update/move behavior and repeats the dry-run capability already present in the schema. It does not disclose overwrite vs. merge semantics, what auto_purge actually does, permission requirements, or side effects on caches or related widgets.

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 front-load the core operation and immediately follow with the most critical usage constraint and dry-run support. There is no filler or redundancy; every clause contributes to correct invocation.

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 mutation tool with a nested object, six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description covers the primary operation and the mutual-exclusion rule, but leaves gaps around auto_purge behavior, return values, and content replacement semantics. It is workable but not fully complete.

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?

The description adds meaningful parameter-level guidance by requiring at most one of block_content or ad_creative and by linking sidebar to the 'move' operation. However, schema description coverage is only 17%, and auto_purge remains unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the low 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Update widget content') and extends it with 'and/or move it to another sidebar', clearly distinguishing this from siblings like wp_move_widget, wp_list_widgets, and wp_delete_widget. It is specific, non-tautological, and tells an agent exactly what the tool operates on.

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 operational context: update content, move to another sidebar, or both, and use dry-run to preview. It also imposes the important constraint to supply at most one of block_content or ad_creative. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is clear enough for selection.

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