Create a post / page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical safety behavior: content defaults to draft to prevent accidental publishing, and only 'status=publish' will make it live. This is significant for safe invocation. It does not disclose other behaviors like return format or permissions, but for a create operation the main risk is well covered.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the purpose and includes a crucial safety caveat without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is sparse. It adequately covers the most important behavioral nuance (draft default) and makes basic use safe. However, it omits information about the return value, and the meaning of many optional parameters remains unclear from both schema and description. This is sufficient for simple cases but leaves gaps for complex invocations.

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 47%, which is low. The description adds meaning for the 'status' parameter (default draft) and the condition for publishing, which is helpful. However, it does not compensate for the 8 parameters lacking schema descriptions (e.g., meta, template, parent, categories, tags). The description provides only marginal value beyond the schema's existing param descriptions.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create new content on a site.' The title 'Create a post / page' further clarifies the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_update_content, wp_delete_content, wp_get_content, and wp_list_content.

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?

Provides explicit and valuable guidance about the default draft status and when to pass 'publish' — 'only when the user asked for it to be published.' This is a key usage consideration, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The creation-vs-update distinction is implicit, which is acceptable for this context.

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