wordpress_schedule_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool schedules events but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify required permissions (e.g., admin capabilities), whether scheduling is immediate or delayed, how to set timing/recurrence (implied by 'one-time or recurring' but no parameter details), or what happens on failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Schedule a new cron event') and uses a parenthetical to add key detail ('one-time or recurring'), 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, error handling, how to configure event timing/recurrence, and what the tool returns. The sibling list includes related tools like 'wordpress_unschedule_event' and 'wordpress_schedule_post', but no context is provided to differentiate them.

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%, with one parameter ('hook') undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions 'one-time or recurring' but doesn't link this to parameters or explain how to specify event types, timing, or recurrence intervals. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Schedule') and resource ('a new cron event'), with the parenthetical adding specificity about event types ('one-time or recurring'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_unschedule_event' by focusing on creation rather than removal, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all scheduling-related tools (e.g., 'wordpress_schedule_post').

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for cron events, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid hook names), when to choose one-time vs. recurring, or how it differs from other scheduling tools like 'wordpress_schedule_post' or 'wordpress_schedule_backups'.

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