wp_update_widget_instance

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' and does not explain whether this is a partial or full overwrite, what happens when title/text/content are omitted, or what response is returned. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 one concise sentence with the operation, target resource, type restriction, and identifier method front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves important invocation details unspecified, such as overwrite behavior, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, and what success/failure looks like. The schema covers parameter names but not the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 schema already documents id, text, and content (75% coverage), so the description adds only modest context by tying the tool to 'text or custom_html' widget types. It does not clarify the undocumented 'title' parameter or whether text and content are mutually exclusive based on widget type.

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 the operation ('Update'), the resource ('widget instance'), and narrows it to 'text or custom_html' types with 'by widget ID'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling update tools such as wp_update_page and wp_update_post, which target different resources.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool to update text or custom_html widget instances, and the 'by widget ID' phrase signals a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the guidance implicit rather than direct.

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