wp_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only explains the URL-relative path rule. It does not mention that the tool can perform mutating requests, how the body is transmitted, what the response format is, or what error behavior an agent should expect from a raw WordPress REST API passthrough.

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, front-loaded sentence with a concrete example and no filler. It focuses on the non-obvious routing constraint that an agent could not infer from the parameter names alone.

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 an unannotated generic HTTP wrapper with three parameters and no output schema, the description omits critical invocation context: default method behavior, how body is used, and what response/error shape to expect. The path rule is essential but not sufficient for safely choosing and calling arbitrary GET, POST, PUT, or DELETE endpoints.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does add important meaning for path (leading slash and /wp-json relativity), but method and body are left entirely unexplained beyond the schema's bare enum and object type.

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 identifies wp_request as an escape hatch for WP REST API routes not covered by dedicated sibling tools. The 'any other' phrasing plus the example distinguishes it from the specialized wp_get_post, wp_create_post, and related tools without requiring the schema.

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?

'Escape hatch for any other WP REST API route' gives a clear fallback context: use this when no specialized sibling tool matches the endpoint. It does not explicitly state 'use dedicated tools when available' or name exclusions, so it is strong but not fully explicit.

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