wordpress_schedule_post

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 the date format, which is useful, but fails to describe critical behaviors: it doesn't state that this is a mutation operation (scheduling changes post status), what permissions are required, whether the action is reversible, or what happens if the datetime is invalid. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a critical format detail. There is no wasted text, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: behavioral traits (e.g., mutation effects, error handling), parameter details beyond format, and expected outcomes. This leaves the agent under-informed for proper 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 adds some value by specifying the datetime format ('YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS'), which clarifies the schema's string type. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't explain the 'postId' parameter (e.g., that it refers to an existing post ID) or other constraints. The description partially compensates but leaves key parameter semantics undocumented.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Schedule') and resource ('a post'), making it easy to understand what it does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'wordpress_publish_post' (immediate publication) and 'wordpress_update_post' (general updates), though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives in the description.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the post must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot schedule already published posts), or compare with related tools like 'wordpress_publish_post' or 'wordpress_update_post', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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