wordpress_transient_flush

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It effectively discloses the destructive nature (flush/purge), available scopes, default behavior (expired), multisite handling, and permission requirement. It adds value by specifying the companion plugin version and the shell glob pattern for the 'pattern' scope, though it omits return values or side effects.

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 concise paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then elaborates on scopes and multisite behavior. It avoids fluff but could benefit from structuring (e.g., bullet points) for quick scanning. Still, it efficiently conveys essential information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers behavioral aspects but omits return format, potential side effects, and the meaning of the required 'site' parameter. For a destructive mutation tool with moderate complexity, more context would be beneficial for safe usage.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'scope', 'pattern' (via scope), and 'include_site_transients' meanings. However, it fails to explain the required 'site' parameter, which is a significant gap given the context of managing multiple WordPress sites. Overall, adds meaning for most but not all parameters.

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 (flush), resource (WordPress transients), and details specific scopes ('expired', 'all', 'pattern') and multisite behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying its unique functionality of transient flushing, which is not shared by other WordPress tools in the sibling list.

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 mentions a prerequisite (requires manage_options) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like wordpress_cache_purge or other cache-related tools. No guidance on exclusions or alternative approaches is provided, leaving usage context partially implied.

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