wp_add_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'upload'. It omits whether write permissions are required, supported file types or size limits, whether the file is copied or moved, and whether the call is reversible. Only the bare mutation intent is conveyed.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the near-total absence of detail is a coverage problem rather than a conciseness virtue.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: it never indicates that the response likely returns a media ID, nor any prerequisite (permissions, existing file on disk, accepted formats). More context is needed for an agent to call this 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 100%, so title, alt_text and file_path are all documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax, format, or path-resolution detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (upload) and resource (media file) with the target system (WordPress), which clearly identifies it as the media-creation counterpart to wp_get_media, wp_media_search and wp_delete_media. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the scope of the operation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to add media versus searching or getting existing media, nor whether the file must already exist on the server. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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