wordpress_create_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by explaining that 'status' defaults to 'draft' via the docstring, clarifies that 'date' is for scheduling with an ISO 8601 example, and notes that 'content' can be HTML or block format. However, it doesn't discuss side effects like publishing implications or authentication requirements, preventing a perfect score.

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 well-structured docstring with a clear purpose statement, an Args section listing each parameter on one line, and a Returns section. It is appropriately sized for 10 parameters, with no redundant text or fluff, making it easy to scan and parse quickly.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 2 required) and absence of annotations, the description covers all parameters with clear semantics and even includes return information. It does not elaborate on error handling or permission requirements, but since an output schema is present, the need to describe return values is reduced. This is nearly complete for the tool's purpose.

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 schema provides zero descriptions for parameters, so the description's docstring becomes the only source of semantic meaning. It gives a concise but informative explanation for each parameter (e.g., 'title: Post title', 'content: Post content (HTML or block format)') and adds practical details like the date format and default status. This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 starts with 'Create a new WordPress post.' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like wordpress_create_page. The purpose is immediately clear 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wordpress_create_page or wordpress_update_post. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name.

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