wp_update_synced_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions dry-run capability and the verb 'update,' leaving out details such as whether the update is partial or full, whether existing fields are overwritten, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences, with no filler or repeated schema content. It front-loads the action and adds a useful feature note. It is efficient, though it could offer slightly more useful detail without harming conciseness.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. An agent would not know whether updates are partial, what fields are actually updated, what side effects occur, or what the return value looks like. The dry-run note is helpful but not enough to make the tool safely invocable.

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 described as 'Preview changes without writing.' The description adds no extra meaning for id, slug, title, status, or content beyond their names. Because the schema leaves most parameters undocumented, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update synced pattern.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like wp_create_synced_pattern, wp_get_synced_pattern, and wp_delete_synced_pattern. It does not elaborate on scope, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 sentence 'Supports dry-run' implies a workflow where the user can preview changes, giving some usage context. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to similar update tools such as wp_update_content_block or wp_update_post. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and siblings.

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