pressable_run_wp_cli

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

No annotations are available, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It discloses that commands are prefixed with 'wp' automatically, which is useful. However, it does not mention that running arbitrary WP-CLI commands can be destructive, require certain permissions, or return specific output. This is a significant gap for a 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and adds the key behavioral note about the prefix. Every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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?

This tool runs arbitrary WP-CLI commands, which is a high-risk operation. Without annotations or an output schema, the description fails to mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, or return formats. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke safely, especially given the powerful nature of WP-CLI.

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 50% with 'commands' described but 'id' not. The description clarifies that 'id' refers to a site and that commands should omit the 'wp' prefix, adding some meaning beyond the schema. Yet it does not explain the execution order of multiple commands or error behavior, so it only partially compensates.

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 runs WP-CLI commands on a specific site, which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes itself from the sibling pressable_run_bash_commands by specifying WP-CLI rather than bash commands, and the scope of a specific site is explicit.

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 implies this tool is for WP-CLI commands, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus run_bash_commands or other site management tools. No alternatives or exclusions are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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