wp_update_cpt_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a significant behavior—creating a snapshot before the update—which implies recoverability. However, it does not mention permission requirements, whether unspecified fields are overwritten, or how partial updates are handled, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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 with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and the notable snapshot behavior. It could include more useful detail, but what is present is well structured and every word earns its place.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse for an agent to invoke it correctly in varied contexts. It omits required parameter explanation, expected return behavior, and guidance on how meta/status/scheduled_date interact. The snapshot note is helpful but leaves many practical questions unanswered.

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 9% (only scheduled_date has a description), and the description adds no parameter-specific information. It does not explain that post_type and id are required, nor what each updatable field accepts. The schema provides types but lacks meaning, and the description fails to compensate for this 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing custom post type item', which differentiates it from create/delete/get/list CPT item siblings. The parenthetical 'creates snapshot before update' adds a distinguishing feature. It lacks explicit contrast with the generic wp_update_post tool, but the resource specification is enough.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wp_update_post or wp_get_cpt_item. The snapshot mention hints at a safety property but does not state when this tool should be preferred or when another update tool is more appropriate. An agent has to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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