Create a post or page

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation semantics are partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by stating the return value (new ID and link), which matters because there is no output schema, but it omits defaults (status=draft, type=post), auth requirements, and what happens if creation fails.

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?

Three short sentences with the key return-value information front-loaded; nothing is padded. The lead sentence 'Create content.' is close to a tautology of the name, but the remainder 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 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it covers the return shape (a real plus) but says nothing about the draft-by-default status, the post-vs-page type switch, required title, or the arbitrary meta object. An agent can call it, but only by reading the schema closely.

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 only 21%, so the description must carry the load for 14 parameters, and it largely does not. It mentions meta, taxonomy terms (tags/categories) and page templates, which loosely maps to three params, but leaves slug, parent, menu_order, featured_media, excerpt, status, type and title undocumented beyond the 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 title and description together give a clear verb+resource ('Create a post or page' / 'Create content'), which separates it from wp_content_get, wp_content_update and wp_content_delete. However, the description alone says only 'Create content', which is broad enough that the sibling differentiation comes mostly from the title rather than the body text.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: it never says to use this instead of wp_content_update for existing posts, or to use wp_term_create/wp_post_meta for related resources. The capability note about meta, taxonomy terms and templates hints at scope but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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