wp_change_slug

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 — and it excels. It discloses mutation side effects (old URL 404 behavior), the uniquification behavior for duplicate slugs (still succeeds with `uniquified: true`), sanitization rules, the safe default (dry_run=true), and verification via read-back. No annotation contradiction.

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 long (11 sentences) but dense with critical operational information for a side-effectful mutation tool. Key warnings are front-loaded (old URL 404s) and emphasized via ALL-CAPS markers (CHECK, DEFAULTS TO). Minor redundancy: sentence 4 partially restates the warning already given in sentences 2-3.

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 complex mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations, 5 parameters, and 0% schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It covers side effects, result fields to inspect, parameter semantics, defaults, environment constraints, and verification. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 fully compensates. It explains dry_run's default and effect, where post_id comes from, new_slug's sanitization and refusal behavior, and allow_prod's requirement. Only `install` is left implicit, but it is a common identifier pattern across sibling tools.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb ('Rename'), a precise resource ('one page/post's URL slug'), and immediately flags the key side effect (old URL 404s). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like wp_edit_page (content editing) and wp_find_page (lookup). No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Extremely explicit. It tells the agent to check `old_url_redirects` in the result, explains exactly when the old URL 404s (pages vs. posts), names the source of `post_id` (wp_find_page / wp_get_content), flags the dry_run default, and states environment prerequisites (REST transport, allow_prod for prod). Little is left to inference.

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