workflowmoves_wordpress_publish_post

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

Annotations already declare destructive, non-idempotent, open-world writes, but the description adds real information beyond them: a receipt is minted, credentials are operator-bound, the call returns a retained background job (asynchronous, not a direct result), and effects beyond the base write/network/publication flags depend on the component. That said, 'guarded' is never defined and the consequence of publication on the live site is not spelled out.

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?

Only three sentences, and the async-job return is front-loaded, which is good. However, dense internal phrasing ('canonical guarded WordPress transport', 'Base effect flags') spends words without adding clarity, and the effect-flag sentence assumes vocabulary the reader may not have.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description correctly covers the async poll pattern. Still, for a destructive external publish with a nested, receipt-based argument object, it omits the publish workflow itself (what the manifest contains, how the receipt is consumed) and gives no warning about live-site consequences.

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 50% and the three required fields — manifest, receipt_out, expected_manifest_sha256 — carry no schema descriptions at all. The description only hints at one of them ('a new receipt') and says nothing about what the manifest represents, its format, or why the SHA-256 must be supplied, so it 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 description says it 'invoke[s] the canonical guarded WordPress transport' and lists 'publication' among effects, but it never states plainly that it publishes a post to WordPress or what resource is affected. The compound jargon ('canonical guarded transport', 'operator-bound credentials') leaves the actual action to be inferred from the tool name rather than the prose.

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?

It does give follow-up routing ('poll danceflow_job_status', 'Inspect danceflow_component for conditional inference/download effects'), which is genuinely useful. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over clearly related siblings such as workflowmoves_wordpress_create_draft or workflowmoves_wordpress_schedule_post, leaving the publish-vs-draft-vs-schedule decision undocumented.

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