wp_update_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the valuable fact that a snapshot is created before each update, implying the operation is recoverable. However, it does not disclose how unspecified fields or the nested meta object are handled (merge vs. overwrite), whether the change is revertible via wp_restore_snapshot, or any permission/error conditions.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the key safety behavior in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place; there is 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 mutating tool with 11 parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is thin. An agent cannot tell what the response looks like, whether fields omitted from the request are preserved or reset, or how to leverage the snapshot for rollback despite related tools like wp_restore_snapshot and wp_get_snapshot_diff existing in the sibling set.

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 low at 18% (only id and scheduled_date described), yet the description adds no parameter-level meaning. In particular, the nested meta object's merge/replace semantics are left undefined, and fields like status, template, and featured_media are left to the agent's inference.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('existing WordPress page'), with a useful behavioral note about snapshots. The word 'existing' distinguishes it from wp_create_page and 'page' separates it from wp_update_post, though this differentiation relies partly on the tool name rather than explicit sibling routing.

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 on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as wp_create_page or wp_update_post. The word 'existing' weakly implies it is for already-created pages, but no when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives are provided.

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