wp_blocks_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the status default and typical availability for embedding, which is helpful. However, it omits details such as required capabilities, return value, or side effects (e.g., slug auto-generation).

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 action, and every sentence provides distinct value: the purpose, the content format requirement, and the status default rationale. No redundant or filler text.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core action, the most important parameter semantics, and a behavioral default. It doesn't explain slug or return value, but for a simple create operation this is nearly adequate.

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. It does clarify the critical 'content' parameter format (Gutenberg markup) and reinforces the 'status' default. However, 'slug' remains unexplained, and 'title' is left to inference. The added value is partial.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Create a new reusable block.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wp_blocks_update, wp_blocks_list, and wp_blocks_get. The phrase 'reusable block' also differentiates from generic post creation tools.

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 useful context: content must be Gutenberg block markup, and status defaults to publish with the rationale that reusable blocks are typically immediately available for embedding. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for typical use.

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