wp_upload_media

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

The description indicates a write operation (upload) but fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the upload is destructive (overwrites existing files), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden but provides minimal disclosure.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with key information. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand usage. It earns its place but fails to provide complete guidance.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, along with 5 parameters having low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits details on return values, error scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., staging site credentials), and the exact behavior of the upload operation.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 40% description coverage (only file_path and base64_data have descriptions). The tool description adds no meaning to parameters; it does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., whether file_path or base64_data must be provided, or if both are needed for different use cases).

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 tool name and description clearly state 'Upload media to WordPress staging. Staging only.', which specifies the action (upload) and target (staging environment). This distinguishes it from retrieval tools like wp_get_media and other creation tools. However, it does not clarify what the tool returns or if it replaces existing media.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states 'Staging only', which implies not for production, but lacks explicit conditions, prerequisites, or context for exclusion of other similar tools.

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