connect_wordpress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that api_key is optional and that the REST API must be enabled. However, it does not describe what happens upon success or failure, whether the connection persists, or any side effects beyond establishing a connection.

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?

The description is extremely concise, using a short title sentence followed by a prerequisite and bullet-pointed parameter explanations. Every line serves a purpose with no wasted words. The structure is easily parseable by an AI agent.

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 connection-establishment tool with no output schema, the description should ideally mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status, connection identifier). It lacks this information and also does not explain error handling or the state of the connection after invocation. The parameter details are good, but the overall context is incomplete.

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 0%, but the description provides clear, one-line explanations for all three parameters: connector_name (unique name), site_url (URL with example), and api_key (optional, type: Application Password or JWT Token). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare field names and types.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'WordPress-Site verbinden' and 'Richtet eine Verbindung zu einer WordPress-Site ein.' It specifies the resource (WordPress site) and includes a prerequisite (REST API must be enabled). The name and context distinguish it from sibling connect_* tools.

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 description mentions a prerequisite (REST API enabled) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like connect_calendly or connect_shopify. There is no explicit context for when-not-to-use or when to choose another connector.

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