Wordpress Upload Media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely non-obvious behavior: the file is read directly from disk instead of via base64 payloads, and under containerization the path resolves to the container filesystem with a specific host mount point. It omits auth/permission requirements and any size or duplicate-filename behavior, so it is not complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the rationale, then a clearly labeled CONTAINER NOTE. Slightly redundant, since "Provide an absolute path to the file" restates the first and third sentences, but the total length is proportionate to the caveat being conveyed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the tricky parameter-resolution case that schema text alone cannot. Auth requirements and limits are unstated, which is the main remaining gap for a write tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it explains how file_path resolves under containerization and maps the host upload directory to /tmp/mcp-uploads/ inside the container, which is essential for passing that parameter correctly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Upload a media file to WordPress") plus the input modality (from a local file path). This cleanly separates it from the sibling read/manage tools (wordpress_list_media, wordpress_get_media, wordpress_update_media, wordpress_get_media_url).

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?

Gives clear context for how the tool should be invoked (provide an absolute local path; the file is read from disk rather than passed as base64) and warns about the container-specific case. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one, which is the only gap.

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