wordpress_move_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('move or rename') but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if it overwrites existing files at the destination, what happens on failure, or if it's reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 file operation tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (permissions, overwrites), parameter details, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context 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?

The description doesn't explain what 'source' and 'destination' parameters represent (e.g., file paths, URLs, relative/absolute paths) or provide any formatting examples. With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 ('move or rename') and resource ('file within WordPress'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_copy_file' or 'wordpress_delete_file', which would require mentioning that this tool specifically changes file location/name rather than copying or removing.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wordpress_copy_file' for duplication or 'wordpress_delete_file' for removal. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., file existence, permissions) or typical use cases (e.g., reorganizing media, updating paths).

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