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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it changes what renders SITE-WIDE, it is writes-gated, and it requires Xyle Connector v0.6.0+, which an agent needs to know before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its effects, and every clause carries information (side effects, replacement rationale, warning, gating, version). It is dense but not padded; slightly packed into one run-on block.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it discloses the key behaviors (site-wide render change, writes gating, version requirement) and defaults. Complete enough for correct invocation, though it doesn't describe the response or rollback of the demoted template.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces the default condition semantics ('default include/general = whole site') and demotion behavior, but adds little beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (activate/make live) and resource (header/footer template) and enumerates the concrete side effects (publishes, sets condition, demotes prior active). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like wp_set_template_status or wp_set_template_conditions by framing itself as the one-shot combined action.

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?

Explains the context well: it 'Replaces the create→set-conditions→exclude-old dance,' which tells the agent when to prefer this over a multi-step sequence, and warns to 'screenshot-review first.' It doesn't name sibling tools explicitly as alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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