Create content

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

The description discloses that the tool never publishes to a live site implicitly and creates drafts by default, which is a crucial behavioral trait beyond annotations. It also mentions taxonomy terms are created if missing, indicating a side effect. The annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive, so this description adds value without contradiction.

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 action and then provides two key behavioral clarifications. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, draft default, and taxonomy behavior. No fluff.

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 complex with 20 parameters and no output schema. The description provides the essential rules (draft default, explicit publish, taxonomy term creation) but does not cover what happens if a custom post type is not registered, or whether the created object's ID is returned. Given the schema covers parameter details well, this is adequate but could be more complete.

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 100%, so all 20 parameters have descriptions. The main description adds the default status of 'draft' which is not in the status parameter description, and reiterates the taxonomy term creation behavior which is already in the terms parameter description. It adds minimal but useful context, so a baseline of 3 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 states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'content' (post, page, any custom post type). It clearly differentiates from siblings like update_content and delete_content by the action it performs. The additional detail about draft-by-default and taxonomy term auto-creation provides clarity on the tool's behavior.

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 explains when to use the tool (to create any content type) and provides important context that content is created as a draft unless published explicitly. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_content for modifications or bulk_update_content, but the purpose is unambiguous. It implicitly suggests that for small changes, one should use `edits` (though that's in parameter description). This is clear usage guidance.

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