wordpress_update_page

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 page' only indicates a mutation but does not specify whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether specific permissions are required, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur (e.g., matching a page ID). This is critically insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and easy to read. However, it is under-specified, lacking necessary details about parameters and behavior. While it avoids wasted words, it does not 'earn its place' fully because it omits critical information, making it less useful than a slightly longer but more complete description.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description is extremely minimal. It does not explain what the response looks like, how errors are handled, or what the updates object structure is. For a tool with two parameters and an arbitrary update object, this description is incomplete and would leave an agent guessing about invocation details.

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 input schema defines two parameters (pageId and updates), but the description adds no meaning to either. The 'updates' parameter is an opaque object with additionalProperties allowed, and the description does not explain what fields are expected, how they map to page attributes, or whether it's a partial patch. With 0% schema coverage and no compensatory description, parameter semantics are effectively absent.

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 page' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('existing page'), making it specific. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like wordpress_create_page, wordpress_get_pages, and wordpress_delete_page by indicating the action and target. The word 'existing' also implies this operates on already-created pages, which is a useful distinct constraint.

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 such as wordpress_update_post or wordpress_create_page. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where this should be preferred. There is no information about how it differs from updating a post or when a page must exist before calling this.

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