wordpress_write_theme_fileWrite or modify a WordPress theme file, automatically creating a backup of the original.
Write or modify a file in a theme (automatically creates backup)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| theme | Yes | ||
| filePath | Yes | ||
| content | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic backup creation, which is valuable for a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, overwrite behavior, path constraints, or error handling. The backup disclosure adds some transparency but is limited.
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?
One concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the action. The backup note is a useful addition that earns its place.
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 potentially destructive write operation, the description lacks details on return values, permissions, overwrite behavior, and backup restore process. With no output schema and no annotations, this is insufficient for safe and confident 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that 'theme' and 'filePath' relate to a theme file but doesn't define formats, constraints, or that 'content' is the raw file content. Minimal added meaning beyond the parameter names.
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 writes or modifies a file in a theme, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wordpress_read_theme_file and wordpress_write_file by emphasizing theme-specific file writes and the automatic backup feature.
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 implies usage for theme file modifications but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The backup note offers a reason to prefer this tool, but there's no guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to generic wordpress_write_file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.