wp_upload_media

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. While 'Uploads' implies a write operation, it lacks critical details: whether authentication is required, what permissions are needed, if there are file size or format restrictions, how errors are handled, or what the return value contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly—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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or return values, nor does it provide usage guidance relative to siblings. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but other critical context is missing.

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 the schema already fully documents all 7 parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—adequate but not adding value.

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 action ('Uploads') and target resource ('a file to the WordPress media library'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wp_update_media' or 'wp_get_media', but the verb 'Uploads' suggests creation rather than modification or retrieval, providing some implicit distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wp_update_media' for modifying existing media or 'wp_get_media' for retrieval. It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as authentication requirements or file format limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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