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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: 'Rein additiv, kein Risiko für bestehende Daten' and the site_url requirement for multiple installations. It still does not cover permissions, timing, or storage impact.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then use case, safety, and parameter condition. No redundant or filler text.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and the main parameter nuance well. It could be more complete by mentioning how to check backup status afterward or any prerequisite that WordPress must already exist.

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. The description adds extra semantic value by clarifying that site_url is required when multiple WordPress installations exist on the same domain, including subdomains.

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: 'Erstellt ein neues On-Demand-WordPress-Backup (über WP Toolkit)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as get_wordpress_backups, delete_wordpress_backup, and restore_wordpress_backup by naming the create action and the on-demand nature.

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?

Gives a clear concrete usage context: 'z. B. als Absicherung vor einem riskanten Plugin-Update'. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools for listing, restoring, or deleting backups.

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