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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavior: it is server-side, reads the page, applies swaps to every text field, writes through a validated patch path, returns only a replacement count plus sample diffs (never the full page), is round-trip safe and write-gated, and supports dry_run previews. This is substantial operational context.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and scope, then covers mechanics, return behavior, and usage guidance in four tight sentences. Every clause earns its place and there is 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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (count and sample diffs, never full page) and notes write-gating and dry_run behavior. Required inputs are documented in the schema, so the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 all parameter semantics are already documented. The description reinforces the replacements format ('TINY [{find, replace}] list') and mentions dry_run previews, but adds no meaning beyond the schema for site_id, post_id, whole_word, or case_insensitive.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (deterministic find/replace across all editable text fields), names the scope (whole page, server-side), and explicitly distinguishes itself from wp_patch_page as the alternative for large ops payloads. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit usage context ('Use this for template work ... instead of pasting a huge ops payload into wp_patch_page') and names the sibling alternative to use instead in that scenario. This directly guides tool selection and reduces ambiguity with related write tools.

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