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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is known. The description adds useful procedural context by mandating body-structure discovery before execution, which is a real safeguard. However it never says what gets modified or destroyed, whether operations are reversible, or what failure modes exist — meaningful omissions for a destructive, open-world tool.

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 purpose, then the required steps as a numbered list, then a single emphasis line. Efficient overall; the literal 'xxxxxx' placeholders are slightly noisy but clearly illustrative of action IDs rather than filler prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the opaque body is handled by the discovery workflow. For a one-parameter, destructive, open-world tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs to sequence the call 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?

The single `body` parameter is an untyped object with additionalProperties=true and 0% schema coverage, so the schema alone tells an agent nothing. The description compensates by routing to query_contexts/actions_details for the exact per-action body structure and instructing it to "follow the schema exactly" — a genuine addition beyond structured fields, though it still cannot describe any field itself.

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 and resource ("Execute WordPress action") and frames it as the FINAL step of a three-step workflow, which separates it from the read-only siblings. The term "action" remains under-defined semantically (what kinds of actions exist is only discoverable at runtime via available_actions), so an agent understands the shape of the tool but not its full capability surface.

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?

Explicit, ordered prerequisites: call query_contexts with request='accounts' first, then request='actions_details' with specific action IDs, and "Always call step 2 to see the exact body structure before executing." This tells the agent both when to use it and what must precede it, with no alternatives left to inference.

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