wordpress_remove_capability

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 states the action is to 'remove,' implying a destructive mutation, but does not specify if this requires admin permissions, is reversible, affects existing users, or has side effects like breaking functionality. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 does not cover behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or error handling, nor does it explain parameters or return values, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use it correctly.

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 parameters 'role' and 'capability' are undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond naming them, such as explaining what constitutes a valid role or capability, examples, or format requirements. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'Remove capability from a user role' clearly states the action (remove) and target (capability from a user role), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'wordpress_add_capability' beyond the opposite action, missing a direct comparison that could enhance clarity.

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_add_capability' for adding capabilities or 'wordpress_delete_role' for removing roles entirely. It lacks context on prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving usage unclear.

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