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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent), and the description adds a genuinely valuable behavioral fact not covered by them: new posts are created as drafts by default and publishing requires explicit opt-in. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or whether duplicate posts can result from repeated calls.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core action comes first and the safety-relevant default is front-loaded in the second sentence, making it easy to scan.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the single most consequential parameter behavior (draft vs publish). It omits target-site selection (site_id) and what is returned on success, but the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly are present.

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 100%, so all 10 parameters are already documented in the schema, including 'status (defaults to draft)'. The description's status note reinforces the consequence of the default but adds no new parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 new WordPress post. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like wp_create_page or wp_create_custom_post by naming the 'post' resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings to help an agent choose.

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?

It gives useful in-tool guidance on the status default (draft unless 'publish' is specified), which tells the agent how to invoke it safely. However, there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the many sibling creation tools (wp_create_page, wp_create_custom_post, wp_schedule_post, wp_update_post).

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