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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the effect is permanent, that existing app sign-ins are refused, that an unknown uuid produces a WordPress error, and that edit_users plus the right to edit the target user are required. It also notes the bridge forwards the call to the single connected site.

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 compact and front-loaded: it begins with the action and resource, then adds the key consequences, return/error behavior, permissions, permanence, and forwarding context. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return fields (revoked and uuid), the unknown-uuid error behavior, prerequisites, permanence, and site scope. That is enough for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, and both required parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the operation targets one password by uuid for a given user, but does not add syntax or format details beyond the structured parameter definitions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: revoke/delete one application password for a user by uuid. It also clarifies the precise scope (one password, not all passwords or the user) and distinguishes the effect from listing or creating application passwords.

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 makes clear when to use it: to revoke a single application password by uuid, with the consequence that any app signing in with it is refused. It also states the permanence and that only a new password can replace it, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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