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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the real behavioral detail: the Elementor CSS cache is flushed automatically, only text fields returned by wp_builder_get_content are writable, values are sanitized (no script, event handlers, javascript:, iframe) and a replacement introducing such markup lands in failed, and fields containing script/style can only be set via the text form. The ambiguous-outcome warning on timeouts is exactly the kind of mutation context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the no-whole-tree-overwrite guarantee, then dense bulleted limits, then the timeout caveat, then workspace. No filler sentences; even the plugin-version gate earns its place because it changes which limits apply.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with an output schema and zero schema coverage, this covers everything an agent needs: writable field class, sanitization rules, error outcomes (failed with reason, HTTP 403 hf_post_not_writable), cache side effect, and retry policy. Return values are backed by the output schema, so no further explanation is owed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load — and it does for the hard part, spelling out both accepted item shapes for replacements ({element_id, field, text} vs {element_id, field, search, replace}) and calling workspace an optional customer-workspace slug needed only when there is more than one. The one gap is post_id, which the description never defines despite being a required parameter.

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?

Names a specific verb (replace text) plus a narrow resource (page-builder elements in Elementor/Bricks) and immediately bounds the scope: never overwrite the whole tree, layouts stay untouched. That scope statement alone separates it from wp_update_post and strapi_replace_text, and it points to wp_builder_get_content as the source of the element addresses.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite (element addresses come from wp_builder_get_content), the when-not cases (Bricks code elements are signed/tabu, builder templates and non-public post types return 403, HTML widgets land in failed), and the recovery rule for wp_timeout/wp_unreachable — look first, don't blindly retry. That is the full when/when-not/alternatives set.

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