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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds genuine non-schema context: writes must be enabled, the operation goes through plugin transport, and it requires Xyle Connector v0.6.0+. It stops short of saying whether a status change is reversible or what is returned.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the statuses before the operational caveats. 'Plugin transport' is slightly jargon-y but the whole description is free of 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites and version requirements but omits the effect of each transition (e.g., whether trash is recoverable) and any return behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and all three parameters are documented, so the schema carries the load. The description's parenthetical '(draft)' mildly clarifies that unpublish maps to the draft status, but adds no syntax or constraints beyond the schema's own status list.

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+resource: changing a template's publish status, with the three main transitions named (publish, draft, trash). It is clearly distinguishable from wp_set_page_status (page vs template) and wp_delete_template, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Writes-gated' implies the wp_enable_writes prerequisite, which is useful usage context. However, it never says when to use this versus wp_update_template, wp_delete_template, or trashing-via-deletion, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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