wp_users_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses required versus optional fields and the default role ('subscriber'), which is useful. However, it omits expected behavior like response format, uniqueness constraints, error handling, or permission requirements, so it only partially covers the tool's behavior.

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?

Two sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, the second clarifies required/optional fields and default behavior. No fluff or repetition.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't describe the return value (e.g., created user ID or object), side effects, or unique constraints. Missing parameters like slug, locale, and nickname add to the incompleteness. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's contract.

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 lists most parameters (9 of 12) and adds note about default roles, giving meaning beyond the schema's raw property names. Yet it completely ignores slug, locale, and nickname, and doesn't explain the format or purpose of 'roles' beyond a default, so it doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Create a new WordPress user' — a specific verb and resource that clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like wp_users_update, wp_users_delete, and wp_users_list. It immediately states the action and the target, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for creating new users, which implies it's for new records rather than modifying existing ones (use wp_users_update) or deleting (wp_users_delete). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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