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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the exact failure mode of other tools (every write refuses with error='writes_disabled'), the persistence condition (until wp_enable_writes is called), and the blast radius (reads are unaffected). This is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs to reason about side effects.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core effect, then the state machine, then the usage trigger. No filler; each sentence conveys distinct information.

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 single-parameter state-toggle tool with no output schema, it covers what the tool changes, what breaks afterward, how to revert, and when to invoke it. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (site_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 and effect ('Set a connected WordPress site READ-ONLY'), naming the resource and the resulting state. It is cleanly distinguishable from siblings, and even names the counterpart tool wp_enable_writes, so an agent knows exactly what this does 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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use when the user asks to lock a site or pause edits.' It also names the alternative path to reverse the state (wp_enable_writes), so both the trigger and the exit route are stated rather than inferred.

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