Update WordPress themes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that the operation is asynchronous and that a successful response only means the update job has been queued, preventing the agent from treating success as completion.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then installation identifier lookup, then the asynchronous caveat. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact needed to invoke the tool correctly, with no filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity operation with a fully covered schema and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation details: what to update, how to identify the installation, and how to interpret a successful response. It could optionally explain how to check job completion, but the essential context is present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value for the 'software' parameter by pointing to GET /api/hosting/v1/wordpress/installations and the 'id' field to obtain the identifier. It does not add extra semantics for 'themes' or 'username', but those are already clearly described in the schema.

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 immediately states the specific action: 'Update one or more installed themes to their latest version on a WordPress installation.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools for installing, activating, listing, or uninstalling themes, as well as from WordPress core/plugin update tools.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hosting_installWordPressThemeV1, hosting_activateWordPressThemeV1, or hosting_updateWordPressPluginsV1. It only explains how to obtain the software identifier, which is parameter acquisition rather than usage selection.

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