wp_update_block

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the genuine dual-mode locating behavior (path-based vs name-based lookup with optional text disambiguation), which goes beyond the schema. However, it omits important edge-case behavior: what happens when multiple blocks match block_name/match_text, what happens when no block is found, and whether path and block_name are mutually exclusive.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the verb and resource before the targeting details; there is no filler. The phrasing 'by finding block_name with optional match_text' is slightly awkward (it reads as if block_name itself is being found), but it remains compact and information-rich.

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?

This is a mutating tool with 5 parameters, two targeting modes, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the definition stops at the core action. Missing context includes match-count behavior, error conditions for unfound blocks, whether path and block_name can be combined, and any pointer that wp_list_blocks is the prerequisite for obtaining a valid path.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds marginal value by framing the relationship between path, block_name, and match_text as a coherent targeting strategy, though the schema already states 'when path is omitted' and 'when finding by block_name.' Notably, page_id — a required parameter — is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 names a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('Gutenberg block attributes'), then immediately distinguishes the two targeting strategies: by path or by block_name with optional match_text. Among the sibling tools, only this one targets Gutenberg blocks specifically, differentiating it clearly from wp_update_post, wp_update_page, and the wp_elementor_update_* family.

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 embeds a within-tool targeting rule (use path or use block_name/match_text) but gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as wp_update_post for post fields or wp_elementor_update_element for Elementor pages. No prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling comparisons are mentioned.

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