ecp_oneclick_install_wordpress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the side effects (creates directory, nginx block, patches wp-config.php) and the critical limitation (does not install WordPress). It does not mention whether the operation is destructive or idempotent, or whether it requires specific permissions, but the enumerated side effects give the agent a solid behavioral model. A 4 is appropriate because the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the name, though it could disclose idempotency/overwrite behavior.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core action and its three concrete effects; the second sentence delivers the critical exclusion and the follow-up tool. Every clause earns its place.

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 scaffolding tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main workflow, the follow-up step, and the key side effects. It does not describe the return value or success/failure signals, and it does not explain what 'patches wp-config.php for HTTPS' entails in terms of required inputs. However, the explicit routing to ecp_oneclick_get_blueprint makes the overall workflow complete enough for an agent to proceed. A 4 is justified; a 5 would require return-value or error information.

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%, so the description must compensate for the four undocumented parameters. The description implies the purpose of app_dir, domain, and php_version (scaffolding a WordPress app with nginx and HTTPS), but it does not explain the exact meaning or constraints of each parameter, nor how they relate to the scaffolded artifacts. It adds some context but leaves the agent to infer parameter semantics from the schema names alone. Baseline 3 is fair.

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 states a specific verb ('Scaffold'), the resource ('WordPress app'), and enumerates the concrete actions (creates app directory, nginx server block, patches wp-config.php for HTTPS). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a full WordPress install, which is critical given the sibling ecp_oneclick_get_blueprint. This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 explicitly says what the tool does NOT do ('Does NOT install WordPress itself') and directs the agent to the exact sibling tool to use afterward ('see ecp_oneclick_get_blueprint and run its install commands yourself afterward'). This is an explicit when-to-use/alternative routing, leaving no ambiguity about the follow-up workflow.

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