wp_elementor_update_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing image), permission requirements, reversibility, or whether partial updates are allowed. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action and key methods. Every word is necessary; no filler or redundancy.

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 description lacks information about return values, required parameters (page_id is only in schema), and prerequisites. For a mutation tool without output schema, this is incomplete.

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 67%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it rephrases existing descriptions but does not clarify usage nuances (e.g., whether partial updates are supported or how image_url relates to image_id). It meets baseline expectations.

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 verb ('update'), resource ('image widget'), and specifics (by element_id or match_url, setting image_id, image_url, caption). It distinguishes well from sibling tools that update other widget types (e.g., text, button).

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 provides two identification methods (element_id preferred, match_url as alternative) and lists settable fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other update tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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