workflowmoves_wordpress_create_draft

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the call is asynchronous and returns a retained background job requiring polling, that credentials are operator-bound, and that base effects are write/network/publication with possible conditional inference/download effects. That is substantive behavioral context not encoded in readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint. It does not explain what the receipt or manifest represent, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler, but they are front-loaded with internal terminology ('guarded transport', 'canonical', 'base effect flags') rather than the user-facing action. Density without accessibility.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write tool with nested required arguments, and an output schema that spares the description from explaining return values. Even so, the definition leaves the agent unclear on what a draft is, what the manifest/receipt contract requires, and when to choose this over publish_post or schedule_post.

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 only 50%, and the description covers even less: 'receipt' and 'credentials' loosely map to receipt_out and permissions, but the two most consequential required parameters, manifest and expected_manifest_sha256, get no explanation of what a manifest is or why its hash must be supplied. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 name says 'create_draft', but the description never states that it creates a WordPress draft post. Instead it describes mechanism ('invoke the canonical guarded WordPress transport with operator-bound credentials and a new receipt'), which restates internal plumbing rather than the outcome an agent is selecting the tool for.

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 only routing guidance is post-invocation ('poll danceflow_job_status', 'inspect danceflow_component'), which is useful lifecycle advice but not when-to-use guidance. There is no mention of how this differs from the adjacent workflowmoves_wordpress_publish_post, schedule_post, or upload_media siblings, even though several of them mutate the same resource.

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