wordpress_upload_media

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 action ('upload') but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention required permissions (e.g., upload capability), file size limits, supported formats, whether it overwrites existing files, or what happens on success/failure. The base64 encoding note is useful but insufficient 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 zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential technical detail (base64 encoding). Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (permissions, limits), parameter details, and output expectations. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for safe and effective use given the tool's complexity and lack of structured documentation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'base64 encoded file' for 'fileBase64' and implies 'filename' is needed, but doesn't explain parameter meanings beyond that (e.g., filename constraints, encoding details). With 2 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal value over the bare schema.

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 verb ('upload') and resource ('image or file to WordPress media library'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_get_media' (read) and 'wordpress_delete_media' (delete), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'wordpress_update_media' (update).

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 like 'wordpress_update_media' or 'wordpress_bulk_optimize_images'. It mentions the base64 encoding requirement, which is a technical prerequisite but not usage context. No explicit when/when-not statements or sibling comparisons are included.

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