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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful default behavior — draft status unless overridden — but omits permissions/capabilities, duplicate-slug behavior, and what is returned after creation.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then required arguments, content format, defaults, and meta behavior. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and very low schema description coverage, the description is only partially complete. It covers the core creation behavior and defaults, but does not address the created post's return value, permissions, or the two undocumented parameters, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 14%, so the description must compensate. It does explain post_title is required, post_content accepts HTML/blocks/Markdown, the draft and post defaults, and meta_input's role, but it leaves post_name and post_excerpt undocumented and does not enumerate accepted post_status values.

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 and resource ('Create a post, page or item of another post type'), which clearly separates it from update, alter, get and delete siblings. An agent can identify the correct operation without 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?

The create intent is implied by the verb and by the defaults for status and type, but the description never states when to use this versus wp_update_post, wp_alter_post or wp_write_blocks. No explicit exclusions or alternative-routing guidance are provided.

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