wp-cli-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires administrative permissions, if it's idempotent (e.g., handling already-installed themes), potential side effects (e.g., affecting site performance), or error conditions (e.g., invalid slug). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a write operation (theme installation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, error handling, return values, or interactions with sibling tools (e.g., 'wp_theme_activate'), which are essential for an agent to use this tool correctly in a WordPress context.

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 100%, with both parameters ('slug' and 'activate') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the theme source ('from wordpress.org'), which is minimal value. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating detail.

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 clearly states the action ('Install') and target resource ('a theme from wordpress.org'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wp_theme_activate' or 'wp_plugin_install', which would require more specific language about theme installation versus activation or plugin installation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin access), when not to use it (e.g., for custom themes not on wordpress.org), or direct alternatives like 'wp_theme_activate' for already-installed themes, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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