wp_batch

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 explains the validation modes and default behavior ('require-all-validate' rejects the batch if any request fails validation; 'normal' runs best-effort), which is valuable. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or detailed error handling for partial failures.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and every clause adds value. It avoids fluff and clearly communicates the key facts: what it does, when to use it, and the critical validation behavior.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main purpose, use case, maximum batch size, and validation semantics. It does not describe the response format or error propagation, but the existing information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 parameter understanding. It explains the 'validation' parameter and its enum values, but does not describe the 'requests' parameter structure beyond what the schema already provides. The schema is self-explanatory for 'requests', but the description adds minimal value for parameter semantics.

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 tool executes up to 25 WP REST requests in a single round-trip via /wp/v2/batch/v1, identifying the specific action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on individual resources by emphasizing the batch mechanism.

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 explicitly recommends using the tool 'for performance when applying many independent writes,' providing a clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the inference that individual tools are better for single requests is straightforward.

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