wordpress_upload_media_chunked_chunk

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It correctly states the core action and ordering requirement, but it omits details such as error conditions (e.g., wrong order, invalid session), idempotency, or the role of the optional chunk_sha256 parameter. This partial disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of just two sentences. It front-loads the action and includes the critical ordering constraint with no wasted words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The tool is part of a chunked upload workflow, but the description fails to mention key context: that a session must be started beforehand, what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator), or how it integrates with start/finish/abort. Given no output schema and no annotations, this minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 description must clarify parameters. It implicitly covers data_b64 (base64-encoded chunk) and index (ordering), but site, session_id, and chunk_sha256 are left unexplained. The description does not add enough value beyond the raw schema, leaving key parameters ambiguous.

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 tool appends a single base64-encoded chunk to a chunked upload session, specifying the resource (chunked upload session) and action (append). It also adds ordering constraints (chunks must arrive in order starting at index 0), making the purpose highly specific and unambiguous.

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 provides an important usage guideline about chunk ordering, which helps the agent understand correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool in relation to its siblings (e.g., start, finish, abort), nor does it mention prerequisites like an existing session. This leaves the 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.