wp_fix_best_practices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose exact side effects: permalinks are set to /%postname%/ and XMLRPC is disabled via an mu-plugin. It does not describe return values or error behavior for invalid fix IDs, which keeps it slightly below a 5.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main action, and packs the essential supported values and behaviors into minimal space. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides everything needed to invoke it correctly: the fix IDs and their effects. It could be more complete by noting that wp_audit_best_practices is the companion discovery step and by describing the response, but these are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond the schema by explaining what each supported fix ID actually does. It explicitly lists 'permalinks' and 'xmlrpc' as the currently supported values and adds the consequence of applying them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Apply') with a clear resource ('auto-fixes for best practice issues') and enumerates the exact supported fixes and their effects. This distinguishes it from the sibling audit tool (wp_audit_best_practices) and from content/plugin operations.

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 the tool is used when best-practice issues need correction and only supports the listed fix IDs, but it never explicitly says to run wp_audit_best_practices first or explains when not to use this tool. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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