wp_update_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one meaningful side effect—'creates snapshot before update'—which hints at reversibility. However, it omits other important behavioral details such as whether updates are partial or full replacements, permission requirements, or effects on related data.

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 wasted words. The core action is stated first, and the snapshot side effect is neatly contained in parentheses. This structure is both concise and easy to parse.

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?

This is a 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description gives almost no operational context. It does not explain how to perform partial updates, what happens to omitted fields, whether meta/categories/tags replace or merge, or what the agent should expect in the response. The snapshot note is helpful but far from sufficient for such a complex tool.

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 8%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter semantics, but it does not mention any parameters. For instance, it does not clarify whether meta, categories, and tags replace or merge with existing values, or what the scheduled_date format expectations are beyond the schema's brief note.

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 and resource: 'Update an existing WordPress post.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like wp_create_post, wp_delete_post, and wp_update_page by naming the exact object type (post) and implying an existing resource. The parenthetical about snapshots adds useful context without confusing the core purpose.

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 when to use the tool (when updating an existing WordPress post) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives. It does not mention that pages use wp_update_page, or that creating a post should use wp_create_post, leaving the agent to infer routing from the resource name.

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