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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: 'Auto-verifies either way' discloses a verification side effect, plus the SSH defaults (port 65002, ~/public_html). It omits failure/retry behavior, but the additions are real value.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the two method variants, with no filler. Every clause (method routing, default port, default root, auto-verify) carries information the caller needs.

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 an eight-parameter, one-required tool with no output schema, the description covers both invocation paths and the auto-verification outcome adequately. Minor gaps remain around the connect_wordpress prerequisite (only in the schema) and what happens if verification fails, but the core call is fully specified.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds combinatorial meaning the schema does not: it groups the eight parameters into two mutually exclusive method sets (SSH vs plugin) and tells the agent which subset to send. That pairing/exclusivity is more than the per-field descriptions convey.

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 action ('Finish connecting a site') and lays out the two supported connection methods, which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling connect_wordpress that starts the flow. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied through the word 'Finish' rather than stated.

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 clear conditional guidance: use the SSH path with ssh_ip + username, or the plugin path with site_url + wp_username + app_password. It does not spell out prerequisites (e.g. that connect_wordpress must have run first, or when one method is preferred over the other), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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