wp_create_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits beyond the schema: input validation occurs and the success response includes management links. But it says nothing about required capabilities/authentication, error behavior, or what happens to defaults such as status when omitted, so a mutation tool remains only partially covered.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded and the examples are scannable, each illustrating a distinct capability rather than repeating itself. Seven examples is on the verbose side, but none is pure filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and while the description notes that success feedback with management links is returned, it never details the response shape or failure modes. Combined with no annotations on a write tool, the definition covers invocation but leaves the agent guessing about permissions, validation failures, and sibling selection.

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 coverage is reported as 100%, but the schema contains only the 'site' parameter, while the description documents title, content, excerpt, status, categories, tags, featured_media, and date through examples. It adds real meaning the schema lacks, including the ISO-8601 date format for scheduled posts and the featured_media=0 convention for removal, though array encoding (categories=[1,5]) is shown without explanation.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new WordPress post') and adds behavioral promises ('comprehensive validation and detailed success feedback including management links'). It is clear, but it never explicitly distinguishes this tool from close siblings such as wp_create_page or wp_update_post, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 seven worked examples demonstrate concrete usage scenarios (simple, draft, scheduled, categorized, featured media, complete), which implicitly tells the agent when particular options apply. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over wp_create_page or wp_update_post, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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