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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes far beyond that: it enumerates concrete side effects (securityKeys ends all sessions, adminUsername replaces the login name, dbPrefix alters the database, secureContent/disableUnusedScripting can break wp-content plugins) and flags that five measures cannot be undone. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 core action and the single-measure constraint, then the discovery pointer, then the critical side-effect list. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information; nothing is padding despite the density.

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 destructive write tool with no output schema and three fully documented parameters, the description supplies scope, discovery path, side effects, and reversibility limits. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real semantic constraint beyond the schema: EXACTLY ONE measure per call, and it names the sibling (get_wordpress_hardening) that supplies valid measure values. That meaningfully lifts it over the schema-only baseline.

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 ("Wendet GENAU EINE WP-Toolkit-Härtungsmaßnahme auf eine WordPress-Installation an") and immediately scopes it as a single measure, which is critical for a destructive operation. It also routes to get_wordpress_hardening for the valid identifiers, so the agent can distinguish this from the discovery sibling without opening either 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?

Explicitly points the agent to get_wordpress_hardening as the prerequisite for obtaining valid measure identifiers, and warns that five of nineteen measures are irreversible. It does not name revert_wordpress_security_measure as the undo path for the reversible fourteen, so the guidance is clear but not fully complete on alternatives.

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