wp_elementor_update_repeater_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key partial-update behavior: only provided fields are changed and others are preserved. However, it does not mention error behavior for invalid indexes or missing elements, whether the operation is reversible, any permission requirements, or what the tool returns, leaving notable uncertainty for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoping ('Partially update an item in an Elementor repeater widget by zero-based index'), and every sentence earns its place. The second sentence clarifies the preservation guarantee without unnecessary elaboration.

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 covers the core operation and partial-update semantics, and the schema handles parameter documentation. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does not fully cover edge cases like invalid indices, nonexistent repeater items, or the return value. It also lacks explicit routing among the closely related repeater sibling 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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters, including the zero-based index and the 'Fields to update' nature of the item object, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds the useful semantic of partial update and preservation, but it does not provide per-parameter details beyond what the schema already states, keeping this at the baseline.

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 names a specific verb ('partially update'), a specific resource ('item in an Elementor repeater widget'), and the addressing mechanism ('zero-based index'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling add/remove/list repeater tools by emphasizing that it modifies an existing item rather than adding or removing one.

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 implies the intended use case—updating only some fields of an existing repeater item while preserving the rest—but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over wp_elementor_add_repeater_item or wp_elementor_remove_repeater_item. It also does not state the prerequisite that the item must already exist or that the index should come from wp_elementor_list_repeater_items, though that hint appears in the schema.

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