wordpress_write_theme_file

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 'automatically creates backup', which is a useful behavioral trait (safety feature), but fails to cover critical aspects: whether this requires admin permissions, if it overwrites existing files, potential side effects (e.g., breaking theme functionality), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 states the action, target, and a key behavioral trait (backup creation) without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 (file mutation in a theme), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical details: parameter meanings, permissions required, error conditions, and output format. The backup feature is noted, but overall it's 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (theme, filePath, content) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats (e.g., theme slug vs. name, file path syntax), or examples. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 action ('Write or modify a file') and target resource ('in a theme'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'wordpress_write_file' (general file writing) and 'wordpress_write_plugin_file' (plugin-specific). However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it handles theme files specifically, though this is implied by the name and context.

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_file' or 'wordpress_write_plugin_file', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., theme must exist, file path must be valid). It only states the action without context for selection.

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