wordpress_write_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'security validation' and 'optional backup', which hints at safety features, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 that front-loads the core action. Every word contributes meaning, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from features).

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 (file write operation with security implications), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover error handling, return values, or detailed behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'optional backup' which loosely relates to 'createBackup', but doesn't explain 'path' (e.g., file system paths vs. URLs) or 'content' (e.g., text, binary). It adds minimal value beyond 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 action ('Write or create file') and resource ('file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'wordpress_copy_file' or 'wordpress_delete_file'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'wordpress_write_plugin_file' and 'wordpress_write_theme_file', which are more specific variants.

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_write_plugin_file' or 'wordpress_write_theme_file'. It mentions 'security validation and optional backup' but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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