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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint, and the description is consistent, reinforcing 'Changes nothing'. It goes further by disclosing what is returned — the draft, its gaps, and whether the site already has an llms.txt plus that text — which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations. Only the build inputs (set-up answers, search plan, home page description/phone) are explained without noting what happens when they are missing.

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 content type and the draft-then-install workflow are front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct fact (what it contains, what it is built from, what it returns, what to do with it, how important it is). It is dense but slightly overloaded, packing inputs, returns and prioritisation advice into one run of 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only drafting tool with no output schema, the description covers what is produced, what source data is used, that existing content is surfaced, and the required follow-up action. What it does not cover — the shape of a 'gap' report or failure when a client has no search plan — is minor at this complexity.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine meaning by explaining that the client name is the key to the client's set-up answers and search plan, i.e. what the parameter actually unlocks. The schema still carries the 'from list_clients' hint, so this is additive rather than compensating for a gap.

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 concrete verb and artifact ('Draft an /llms.txt for a client's site') and then defines it in plain terms: what the business is, what it offers, where, and which page covers each service. It also distinguishes this from the install step by naming wp_llms_txt_set, so an agent can separate drafting from writing without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit operating procedure ('show the draft (and its gaps) to the person, edit it with them, then install it with wp_llms_txt_set') and names the alternative it hands off to. It even adds prioritisation guidance — pages, robots.txt and a plain opening paragraph matter more — which tells the agent when this tool is a low-priority add-on rather than the main task.

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