wordpress_regenerate_thumbnails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It describes the action, the required plugin, two modes of operation (ids list vs. batch), and batch continuation via 'has_more + next_offset'. It does not mention potential side effects like file deletion or authentication, but regeneration is typically non-destructive and the tool is well-documented for its purpose.

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 paragraph but is dense and well-organized: it starts with the core action, then lists usage scenarios, then explains input shapes, and ends with return behavior. It balances completeness with brevity, avoiding unnecessary fluff.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, when to use it, how to use it (ids vs. batch), technical prerequisites (plugin version), and batch continuation. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'ids' parameter (list of specific attachment IDs, max 50 per call) and the batch mode parameters ('all', 'offset', 'limit'). It also clarifies that 'ids' and 'all' are mutually exclusive ('Body shapes: either...'). This adds significant value beyond the schema's raw types and defaults.

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 ('Rebuild attachment sub-sizes') and explains specific scenarios ('after upload_media_from_url / _from_base64 with convert_to=webp|avif, after a theme switch that adds new sizes, or for legacy attachments missing thumbnails'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on thumbnail regeneration, which none of the siblings explicitly address.

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 directly states when to use the tool: after specific upload operations with image conversion, after theme switches, or for legacy attachments. It also mentions the companion plugin requirement. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, the provided context is clear and actionable.

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