WordPress: Wp blocks insert at

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the index-shift side effect ('pushing the rest down'), shared sanitisation/cap rules, and a version prerequisite. It does not explain what a null index does, what exactly gets sanitised, or what the cap is.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its positional effect. The '[UNIFIED]' tag and bridge-name reference carry little operational meaning, but there is no filler beyond that.

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 a destructive mutation with five parameters at 0% schema coverage, a nested free-form block object, and no output schema, the description covers the positional behavior and version gate but leaves identification params, raw_html semantics, and cap limits unresolved. Adequate for a mid-complexity mutation, but with meaningful 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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema itself explains none of the five parameters. The description only indirectly touches 'block' and 'index'; 'site', 'post_id', and especially 'raw_html' are never addressed, nor is the null default for index (likely append). This is insufficient for a 0%-coverage tool with a nested block object.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: insert a single block at a given index, pushing the rest down. It situates itself relative to wordpress_specialist_wp_blocks_replace by referencing shared sanitisation and cap rules, which helps an agent distinguish it. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly as the alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by 'at a given index, pushing the rest down', which contrasts with replacement, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over wp_blocks_replace or wp_blocks_remove_at. The Airano MCP Bridge v2.13.0+ prerequisite is a genuinely useful gating condition. No when-not guidance is given.

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