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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds two pieces of behavioral context: the operation is 'Reversible' and it 'Requires writes enabled'. It also clarifies that 'publish' means taking a draft live. It does not discuss what happens to a published page that is moved back to draft.

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 compact sentences with zero filler: the action and its valid values come first, the prerequisite last. Nothing needs trimming.

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 three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key missing pieces: reversibility and the writes-enabled precondition. Return behavior is unspecified but no output schema exists, so only minor gaps remain.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the status values (publish/draft/private/pending) already present in the schema and adds only the gloss 'take a draft live', which is marginal added meaning.

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 ('Change a WordPress page's status') and enumerates the four target states, so the agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. Differentiation from the sibling wp_set_template_status is only implicit (page vs template), keeping it short of a 5.

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?

The prerequisite 'Requires writes enabled' is a real usage constraint, but the description never says when to prefer this over siblings such as wp_update_page or wp_patch_page, which can also touch page state. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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