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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the partial-update instruction but says nothing about the fact that these are site-wide global settings whose changes affect every page and user, which is relevant context for a tool annotated as destructive. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the partial-update rule immediately after. The field enumeration is mildly redundant with the schema but still earned as a quick reference.

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?

Eight fully documented parameters, no nested objects, and annotations covering the safety profile mean an agent can call this correctly from the combined description plus schema. The only meaningful omission is scope awareness (that these settings are site-wide), which is a minor gap given no output schema exists to explain results.

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 8 parameters carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's list of "common fields" largely mirrors what the schema already documents and adds no syntax, format, or default-value detail beyond it.

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 ("Update WordPress site settings") and enumerates the common fields that can be changed, which makes the tool's job unambiguous next to wp_get_settings. However, it does not explicitly name the read counterpart or any other sibling it competes with, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"Only provide the fields you want to change" usefully implies partial-update semantics, which is implied guidance on how to call it. There is no statement of when to use this tool versus wp_get_settings or other update tools, and no prerequisites (e.g. site_id requirement when multiple sites are connected).

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