set_featured_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is disabled for direct mutation, which is a critical behavioral trait that prevents misuse. It does not explain what happens if called, but 'disabled' is sufficiently transparent for an agent to avoid invoking it.

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 critical 'Disabled' status and immediately follows with the alternative workflow. Every word earns its place.

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 that is meant to be avoided, the description provides the essential information: it is disabled and an alternative workflow should be used. It could name the specific replacement tool, but the sibling list and the phrase 'reviewed payload workflow' give enough context to route the agent correctly.

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% and the description provides no explanation of post_id or media_id. Since the parameters are completely undocumented and the description adds no parameter context, an agent cannot understand what values to pass. Even though the tool is disabled, the description fails to compensate for the schema 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 'Disabled direct mutation tool' but never states what the tool actually does (i.e., setting a featured image on a post). It clearly communicates status, but the function is left to inference from the tool name. This is a vague purpose statement rather than a specific verb+resource description.

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 explicitly labels the tool as disabled and instructs to 'Use a reviewed payload workflow instead.' This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance and points to an alternative, though it does not name the exact sibling tool (e.g., upsert_post_from_payload).

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