WordPress: Upload media chunked finish

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that -- assembly, optimization, upload, and conditional sha256 verification -- but is silent on whether the session is consumed/invalidated afterward, whether a failed finish destroys uploaded chunks, and whether retrying is possible despite idempotentHint=false.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an action summary, followed by one clarifying clause about integrity verification -- no filler or redundancy. It is arguably over-terse for an 8-parameter destructive tool, but nothing written is wasted.

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, 8-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, this is thin. The description never says what is returned (media ID, URL, attachment ID), how errors surface on sha256 mismatch, or what the five undocumented optional parameters do -- information the agent cannot get anywhere else.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and largely fails it: title, caption, alt_text, set_featured and attach_to_post are never mentioned. The only hints given are 'optimize' (loosely mapping to skip_optimize) and 'sha256 if supplied at start', which is not even a parameter of this call. Two of eight parameters are indirectly illuminated at best.

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 uses a specific verb and resource -- 'Finalize a chunked upload: assemble + optimize + upload to WordPress' -- which tells the agent exactly what the call accomplishes and its position as the terminal step of the chunked pipeline. It is implicitly distinguished from sibling phases (start/chunk/status/abort) by the word 'Finalize', though it never names them explicitly.

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 only implied: the agent must infer that this is called after all chunks are sent and that a 'session_id' from a prior start call is required. There is no statement of when-not-to-use it, what happens if called mid-transfer, or why an agent would pick this over wordpress_upload_media_from_base64 or wordpress_upload_media_from_url for smaller payloads.

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