WordPress: Upload media chunked abort

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful detail beyond that: the spill file is deleted as part of the abort. It says nothing about what happens to already-received chunks, or how an unknown/expired session_id is handled.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted clauses. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is uninformative noise, and the terseness comes at the cost of the missing parameter and usage detail.

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, non-idempotent two-parameter operation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the definition is thinner than ideal. The core action and its cleanup effect are stated, but error behavior and parameter expectations are left entirely to inference.

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 both parameters (site, session_id) are undocumented in the schema and the description adds no meaning at all — it never mentions either parameter or the expected session_id format. With a low-coverage two-parameter schema, the description should have compensated and does not.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Abort a chunked upload session') plus the side effect ('delete its spill file'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling chunked-upload tools (chunk, finish, status), leaving that differentiation to the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to the sibling operations that would be the natural alternatives (finish to complete, status to inspect, chunk to continue). An agent must infer from the name that this is the cancellation path.

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