wordpress_write_plugin_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'automatically creates backup', which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it fails to address other critical aspects such as required permissions, potential risks (e.g., breaking plugin functionality), error handling, or response format, leaving significant gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.

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 is front-loaded with the core action and includes a notable behavioral trait (backup creation). There is no wasted text, making it appropriately concise for the tool's purpose.

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 incomplete. It mentions backup creation but omits essential details like parameter semantics, error conditions, security requirements, and output expectations, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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, meaning parameters 'plugin', 'filePath', and 'content' are undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning or context for these parameters, such as expected formats, examples, or constraints, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('Write or modify') and resource ('a file in a plugin'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_write_file' or 'wordpress_write_theme_file', which handle files in different contexts, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over those alternatives.

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_write_file' or 'wordpress_write_theme_file'. It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, offering only a basic functional statement without usage instructions.

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