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

Annotations only declare a generic destructiveHint=true/openWorldHint=true; the description goes well beyond them by naming concrete consequences for individual measures (securityKeys ends all sessions, adminUsername changes login name, dbPrefix alters the database, secureContent/disableUnusedScripting can break plugins) and flagging that 5 of 19 measures are irreversible.

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 purpose, then the sibling pointer, then high-value side-effect warnings. Every sentence earns its place and the dense enumeration of dangerous measures is the most useful content.

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, single-measure mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the discovery path, the irreversibility count, and per-measure side effects. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is already documented, including the get_wordpress_hardening reference for 'measure'. The description reinforces the 'exactly one measure' constraint but adds no syntax, format, or example detail beyond what the schema states.

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 (anwenden), resource (Härtungsmaßnahme) and scope constraint (GENAU EINE) on a WordPress installation. It also points to get_wordpress_hardening as the source of valid identifiers, letting an agent separate it from the discovery-sibling without opening any 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?

The 'GENAU EINE' constraint plus the pointer to get_wordpress_hardening gives clear operating context, and the irreversibility warning shapes when it is safe to call. However it does not explicitly name revert_wordpress_security_measure as the undo path or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing.

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