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. 'Create a new user' implies a write operation, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate usernames/emails, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No structural improvements are needed.

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 user creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, error handling), output format, or how it fits into the broader WordPress context. For a mutation tool with three parameters, more completeness is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (username, email, role) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as format requirements (e.g., email validation) or role implications. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Create a new user' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (user), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wp_user_list, but the verb 'create' inherently distinguishes it from read-only operations.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), when it's appropriate (e.g., for adding users to a WordPress site), or what distinguishes it from similar tools like wp_post_create or wp_menu_create.

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