wp_update_media

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or whether the operation replaces or merges metadata fields. 'Update' implies mutation, but the actual write behavior and safety profile are left entirely unstated.

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 with no wasted words, and the verb is front-loaded. It is concise but does not earn full marks because it is too sparse to support confident invocation for a six-parameter tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not mention accepted fields, partial-update behavior, or dry_run functionality. The schema supplies field names, but the overall context is insufficient for reliable use.

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 only 17%, with only dry_run explained in the schema, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the word 'metadata.' The property names are self-explanatory, but id and dry_run semantics are not clarified anywhere.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('media attachment metadata'), making the core action immediately clear. It is distinct enough from the media siblings like get/upload/delete/set_featured_image, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wp_update_post or wp_set_featured_image. There is also no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

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