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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the old title is retained so undo_fix can restore it, the change is tracked for a 4-week follow-up email, and the call hits the user's own site via the WordPress REST API. These are real behavioral traits, not restated annotations.

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 action and the most important operational rule (preview-then-confirm) before moving to retention, tracking, and prerequisites. Slightly long and partly restates schema-level guidance (confirm behavior, title length), which costs it a point.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the preview response ('show the current title and the proposed one'), the undo path, the verification loop, and the setup prerequisites. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all four parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the confirm semantics and new_title intent but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail the schema does not already carry.

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 ('Changes the title of one post or page on the user's WordPress site') and frames the scope as a single page, which cleanly separates it from sibling audit tools like track_change or undo_fix. An agent can identify the action without opening the 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 two-step protocol: call first WITHOUT confirm to preview, then call again with confirm: true only after the user approves. It also states prerequisites (WordPress connected in SearchLink Settings, Starter plan and up), leaving nothing to inference.

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