Update WordPress core

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that this is an asynchronous operation, so a successful response only means the job was queued. This goes beyond the annotations, which only state that the operation is not read-only and not destructive.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the operation in the first sentence, then gives the identifier sourcing detail, then the asynchronous behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what operation is performed, how to find the required software identifier, and how to interpret a successful response. It could additionally explain how to check job status or clarify mutual exclusivity of minor and version, but these are not blocking.

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 all four parameters, providing a high baseline. The description adds useful meaning by explaining that the software identifier can be retrieved from GET /api/hosting/v1/wordpress/installations and by clarifying that the update is either a minor update or a specific version.

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 clearly states the action (Update), the resource (WordPress core), and the scope (minor update or specific version). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like plugin/theme updates, but the resource noun and scope are sufficiently specific.

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 by stating its purpose, and it provides a useful prerequisite: how to obtain the software identifier from the installations endpoint. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from close alternatives such as agency-hosting_changeWordPressVersionV1 or from plugin/theme update operations.

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