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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose that several subcommands are unavailable and how stdin is consumed. It does not state that commands can mutate or destroy site data, whether output is returned raw or truncated, or how errors/exit codes are surfaced — significant gaps for an arbitrary command-execution 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the format example and the stdin tip. The prohibited-command caveat could arguably come earlier, but there is no wasted text.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what comes back (raw stdout? porcelain output? error shape) and any safety expectations. It covers input format well but leaves the agent guessing about return values and failure behavior on a powerful execution tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real value: a full example command line demonstrating the expected string format and an explicit note that stdin is used for long content with "-" as the file argument. That meaningfully supplements the terse schema descriptions.

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 (run one WP-CLI command on the site) and clarifies the argument format with a concrete example. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like write_file, read_files, or get_site, which operate on files or site metadata rather than arbitrary CLI commands.

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?

Provides useful invocation guidance (omit the leading "wp", put long content in stdin and use "-") and rules out eval, shell, and db import/export. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as write_file/read_files for content changes, nor any caution about command scope or irreversibility.

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