wordpress_add_capability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'add capability' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior safely and effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action. No structural issues are present, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's mutation nature (implied by 'add'), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter documentation (0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, return values, or parameter details, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use in a WordPress environment.

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?

The description mentions 'role' and 'capability' but provides no semantic details beyond what the input schema already shows (two required string parameters). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what valid roles/capabilities are, format examples, or constraints. This leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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 'Add capability to a user role' clearly states the action (add) and target (capability to a user role), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_remove_capability' or 'wordpress_check_user_capability', but the verb 'add' provides basic distinction. It's not tautological since it elaborates beyond just the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing roles/capabilities), when not to use it, or refer to related tools like 'wordpress_remove_capability' or 'wordpress_get_capabilities'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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