wordpress_copy_file

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or what side effects occur. The agent has no insight into these critical details.

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 very concise (one sentence), but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. While it is front-loaded with the core action, it does not use its space effectively to provide essential context.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and uses two parameters without explanation, the description is notably incomplete. It fails to address return values, error handling, overwrite behavior, or typical usage scenarios, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'source' and 'destination' parameters beyond their names. It adds no information about path formats, relative vs absolute paths, allowed directories, or constraints, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Copy file to another location within WordPress', which clearly specifies the verb ('copy') and resource ('file') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'move' (which deletes source) and other file operations. However, it lacks specificity about the location scope (e.g., within wp-content or anywhere).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wordpress_move_file or wordpress_delete_file. The description does not provide any context about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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