export_wordpress_payload

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure responsibility. It usefully reveals that the tool does not publish and produces only a draft-only payload, which signals a non-destructive core behavior. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites like needing an approved revision, whether it persists anything, or what happens if no approved revision exists.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and purpose, then adds a crucial clarifying negation. Every word contributes value.

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?

For a tool with six parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is too thin. It conveys the overall workflow intent but omits parameter semantics, return value, failure modes, and the relationship between the payload and the WordPress publishing dry run. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly with only the provided information.

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 17%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning whatsoever. It does not explain slug, tags, excerpt, categories, local_featured_image, or even the critical trusted_html flag beyond what the schema already says. An agent would have to guess the meaning of five of the six parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Create a draft-only payload from the approved revision" for a "separate publishing dry run." The explicit negation "Does not publish" sharply distinguishes it from any direct publishing flow, and referencing the approved revision links it clearly to the revision workflow.

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 identifies the context: creating a draft-only payload for a separate dry run after an approval. It also communicates a key exclusion by stating it does not publish, which prevents use as a publishing action. It does not name sibling tools explicitly, but the intent and boundary are clear enough.

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