Scaffold a classic theme

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and openWorldHint true. The description adds significant behavioral context by enumerating the exact files generated (style.css, functions.php, header/footer, etc.), the Tailwind CDN setup, and the design token integration. It also clarifies the draft state, which is not explicit in annotations. This goes beyond just disclosing the operation's nature.

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 about 100 words, structured with the core purpose in the first sentence and additional details in the second. It front-loads the action and rationale, then enumerates the deliverables. While the second sentence is lengthy, it packs essential information without redundancy. It is well-organized and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 the complexity of scaffolding a full theme, the description covers all major outputs (files, tokens, Tailwind) and conveys the draft state. It does not describe the return value, but there is no output schema, and for a creation tool this is less critical. The prerequisites like site selection are handled in the schema. Overall, it provides enough information for an agent to understand what will be created and why.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds limited extra meaning. It does mention that design tokens are 'written into theme.css as CSS custom properties and reused across every template,' which gives additional context to the 'tokens' parameter beyond its schema type. However, this is minimal and the baseline for full schema coverage is appropriate.

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: 'Scaffold a complete classic PHP theme styled with Tailwind, as a draft.' It specifies the resource (classic theme), the style (Tailwind), and the draft state, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_draft_theme' or 'install_theme'. The list of files and design token setup further clarifies the scope without ambiguity.

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 a rationale for using classic templates over block markup ('readable, diffable and predictable') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_draft_theme'. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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