wp_post_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing post' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if updates are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence ('Update an existing post') that is front-loaded with the core action. There is zero waste—every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward update operation.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, or return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the additional context needed for safe and effective tool invocation, especially for a write operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (id, post_title, post_content, post_status) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Update an existing post' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like wp_post_create (create) and wp_post_delete (delete), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from wp_post_get or wp_post_list. The description is specific but could be more precise about what aspects can be updated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing post ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new posts), or how it differs from similar tools like wp_post_create or wp_post_get. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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