wp_astro_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it lists workflows and actions, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether actions are read-only or destructive, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens during execution (e.g., side effects, timeouts). This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple complex workflows.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose and key guidance, followed by organized workflows and quick actions. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'sync_check' and 'sync_full' in both workflows and quick actions) and could be more concise by eliminating minor repetitions while maintaining clarity.

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 the tool (multiple workflows, 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers usage contexts and action examples but lacks details on behavioral aspects, return values, and error conditions. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it falls short in fully addressing the tool's operational 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions that 'action' examples include 'site_add, site_analyze, export_start' and that 'params' should use 'wp_astro_describe to see schema', but this mostly repeats or defers to the schema rather than providing additional semantic context for the parameters.

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 tool's purpose as 'Execute a WordPress-to-Astro frontend action' with a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('WordPress-to-Astro frontend action'), distinguishing it from sibling tools wp_astro_describe and wp_astro_help. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate what makes this tool unique beyond being the execution tool versus the help/describe tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it directs users to 'Use wp_astro_help to list available actions' before execution, and it outlines six common workflows with specific action sequences, making it clear when to invoke this tool in different contexts. The 'Quick actions' section further clarifies immediate use cases.

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