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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the return value (a one-click authorization link) and the out-of-band flow where the user approves in WordPress admin. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context the structured fields can't convey, though it doesn't address re-connect behavior or link expiry.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with zero waste: the first states the action, the second explains the mechanism and the key benefit. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter connect tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the returned link, and the human-approval step, and annotations carry the safety profile. Minor gaps remain (what happens on re-connect, link lifetime) but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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% for the single required site_url parameter, so the schema already documents format and example. The description adds nothing about parameter interpretation; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Connect) and resource (a WordPress site), so an agent can immediately tell it apart from the read-only siblings like swiftly_list_sites. It does not explicitly contrast with swiftly_disconnect_site, but the verb direction makes the distinction obvious.

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?

Implies usage by describing the connect flow and noting 'No passwords needed', which hints at why this is preferred over a credentials-based approach. However, it never states when to use this versus siblings or any preconditions (e.g. must the site not already be connected), leaving selection to inference.

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