wordpress_upload_media

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

With no annotations, the description reveals key behavioral details: direct disk read, path requirements, container mount specifics, and a return promise of uploaded item details. It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but the primary operational hazards are clearly disclosed.

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 somewhat long but well-structured with a purpose statement, container note, Args list, and Returns line. Every section adds operational value, and the formatting supports quick scanning.

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?

Covers all parameters (5 total, 1 required), the critical container path caveat, and the return value. It does not elaborate on field-level return details, but an output schema exists and the description is sufficient for correct invocation in container and non-container contexts.

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%, but the Args section compensates by defining all five parameters: file_path with an example, title, alt_text, caption, and description. The example path makes the absolute-path requirement concrete.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Upload a media file to WordPress from a local file path.' It distinguishes itself from sibling media tools (list, get, update, delete) by focusing on the upload action and the local-source constraint.

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 usage context: requires an absolute path, reads directly from disk to avoid large base64 payloads, and clearly explains container filesystem semantics with host/container paths. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the upload action is unique among siblings.

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