WordPress: Wp theme file write

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

Goes well past the annotations, which only mark this destructive/non-idempotent: it discloses a 5 MB body cap, the exact capability checks per file type, the 409 ``sha_mismatch`` failure mode on drift, and default directory creation. Those are precisely the facts an agent needs before attempting a destructive write.

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?

Front-loads the action, then moves through size limit, permissions, concurrency, and directory behavior in a compact sequence with no filler. The internal spec references (S-17, S-18, S-19) and the "[UNIFIED]" prefix are noise, but they cost little against the density of the rest.

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 destructive six-parameter write this covers permissions, size limits, concurrency, and path creation, which is most of what matters. It stops short of saying whether an existing file is silently overwritten, what happens to a partial write failure, or what the response contains.

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 coverage the description has to carry the load, and it explains four of six parameters substantively (base64 body and size cap, sha256 drift check and its error, create_dirs default and behavior). ``site``, ``theme_slug``, and ``path`` are left to inference, though their names are largely self-describing.

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 ("Write a file inside a theme") with the notable qualifier that ``content_base64`` is the full decoded body, which implicitly separates it from the patch sibling. It never names a sibling or states the boundary explicitly, and the leading "[UNIFIED]" tag does nothing for an agent trying to pick a tool.

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?

Gives concrete conditional rules for use: PHP targets need ``edit_themes`` AND ``!DISALLOW_FILE_EDIT`` while non-PHP only needs ``edit_themes``, and ``expected_sha256`` is recommended for optimistic concurrency. What is missing is any explicit routing guidance versus ``wp_theme_file_patch`` or ``wp_theme_file_read``.

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