wordpress_create_page

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 mentions 'hierarchy support,' hinting at parent-child relationships, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, whether the page is published immediately, default status, or potential side effects (e.g., URL slug generation). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a new WordPress page') and adds a key feature ('with hierarchy support') without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, with zero waste or redundancy.

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 complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, return values, and usage context, making it incomplete for effective agent invocation despite its conciseness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'hierarchy support' but does not clarify if this relates to the 'title' or 'content' parameters or requires additional inputs. No details are provided on parameter formats, constraints, or how they interact, leaving the two required parameters largely unexplained beyond their names.

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 action ('Create a new WordPress page') and mentions a specific feature ('with hierarchy support'), which distinguishes it from generic creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_create_post' or 'wordpress_create_menu_item', which also create content types, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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, such as 'wordpress_create_post' for blog posts or 'wordpress_create_menu_item' for navigation items. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing admin access) or typical use cases, offering only a basic functional statement without comparative advice.

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