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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior on top: new posts default to DRAFT, updates preserve existing status unless overridden, and publishing is gated on explicit user intent — all real side-effect semantics not derivable from the annotations. It stops short of mentioning the confirm-gate interaction, which is the one behavior an agent could get wrong.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, ordered by importance: what it does, how to choose create vs update, what the default status outcomes are, then the publish guardrail. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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 destructive, open-world mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential create/update/draft/publish semantics well and the schema fills in the confirm gate. The remaining gap is that it never mentions the confirm requirement or preview behavior, which is central to calling this tool safely.

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 44%, and of the 9 parameters the description only really illuminates id, status and implicitly type ('post or page') — and those meanings largely duplicate the schema descriptions already present. The safety-critical confirm parameter, plus site, slug, title, content and excerpt, receive no added meaning from the description, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 is the right call.

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 pair and resource ('Create or update a post or page') plus the target ('a client's live website'), which cleanly separates it from the read-oriented siblings wp_get_post and wp_list_posts. It also disambiguates the two modes with 'Omit `id` to create', so an agent knows which operation it is triggering before opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing conditions rather than generic context: omit id to create, supply id to update, and the default status behavior in each mode. It also states a negative constraint ('Pass status publish only when the user has explicitly asked'), which is precisely the kind of when-not guidance an agent needs before touching a live site.

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