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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds context the annotations cannot: that it returns an approval panel with Approve/Decline, that an approval_url fallback exists, and that the caller must block until approval. It does not cover request expiry, auth requirements, or whether re-requesting is safe, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, every one load-bearing, with the core purpose front-loaded and the procedural steps (share link, wait, poll) following in execution order. No 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?

Covers the request/share/wait/poll loop thoroughly and explains the return value in the absence of an output schema. It references swiftly_check_approval but never mentions swiftly_execute_approved, leaving the final step of the workflow implicit.

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%, so every parameter (site_id, tool_name, tool_params, preview_summary) is already documented in the schema, including the nested tool_params object. The description adds workflow context around tool_name but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Request user approval before executing a destructive WordPress action') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling it hands off to ('Use swiftly_check_approval to poll'). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and where it sits in the approval workflow.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and how-to-use guidance: call before destructive actions, share the approval_url if no panel is visible, do NOT proceed until approved, and poll with swiftly_check_approval. The blocking constraint and the fallback path are both spelled out, leaving little to inference.

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