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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds critical context beyond them: it checks the live home page to avoid double-installs, requires an Administrator connection and Bridge 1.2.1+, previews by default, and cannot install arbitrary scripts by design. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 paragraph is long and densely packed, but front-loads the core purpose and then systematically covers each tracking type. Every sentence adds technical detail, though the density slightly reduces scannability.

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 complex, 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the full behavioral envelope: preview/confirm workflow, auth requirements, installation limits, removal semantics, and integration dependencies. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 92% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters well. The description still adds value by interpreting the formats (G-…, GTM-…, AW-…), explaining phone_clicks=on behavior, and clarifying GSC verification token input – going beyond the schema's terse examples.

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+resource ('Install or remove tracking and verification on a client's WordPress site, by ID') and enumerates every supported tracking type (GA4, GTM, Ads, GSC, conversions, call tracking), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like ads_create_conversion_action or site_verification_token.

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?

It provides strong usage context: IDs only (cannot install arbitrary HTML), empty string removes an ID, and it previews unless confirm is true. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use against sibling tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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