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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld, and the description adds what they cannot: the edit hits the live site, published posts update instantly with no draft staging, and confirm:true must be true. The 'WRITE — changes your live site' lead sets consequence before any detail.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the risk label, then scope, then the exclusion, then the confirmation requirement. No sentence is filler.

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 9-param mutation with no output schema, it covers consequence, scope, sibling routing and the confirm gate. Minor gaps remain: nothing about failure on a bad id or what the response returns, though the schema carries all parameter detail.

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 the schema already explains field replacement ('replaces the whole body'), format enums, and featured_media 0-removal. The description's list of editable fields largely restates the schema, so it sits at baseline without adding syntax or edge-case guidance.

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?

Specific verb (edit) plus resource (existing post or page) and an enumerated set of editable fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from wordpress_publish by ruling out status changes, so an agent can route 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?

States the exclusion ('Does not change its status (use wordpress_publish)') and names the sibling tool to use instead, plus the confirm:true prerequisite. The live-immediately condition for already-published posts is spelled out rather than left to inference.

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