aism_content_update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which is a large disclosure burden lifted off the description. The description's 'only supplied fields' line adds genuinely useful partial-mutation semantics, but it never mentions that unspecified fields are left intact versus overwritten-by-method, that changes are destructive, or anything about permissions or the POST/PUT/PATCH behavioral differences.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the partial-update constraint is front-loaded ahead of the resource enumeration. Nothing redundant.

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 destructive, open-world, 5-parameter mutation tool with a nested free-form `data` object and no output schema, the description covers the resource surface but leaves the method choice, the meaning of destruction, and the required WordPress field set (deferred to aism_schema only via the schema, not the description) unaddressed. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 coverage is 40%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It does helpfully map the families accepted by the otherwise undescribed `resource` parameter (posts/pages, media, taxonomy, comments) and reinforces the partial `data` semantics that the schema already states, but `id`, `site`, and especially the `method` enum (POST default vs PUT vs PATCH) get no meaning from the description.

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?

States a specific verb (update) plus the scope of editable resources (posts/pages, media alt text/caption, taxonomy relationships, comment moderation), so the agent can tell what class of operation this is. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from aism_content_create or aism_content_delete, but the verb-plus-resource phrasing is clear enough to avoid confusion.

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?

'Update only supplied fields' implies partial-update semantics and the resource list implies which resources are in scope, so usage is inferable. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no pointer to aism_content_create for new content or aism_content_delete for removal, and no mention of when to prefer this over aism_schema for inspecting fields.

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