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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the old password is immediately invalidated, the new password is returned in plaintext exactly ONCE and is then unrecoverable, and a nonexistent login is rejected via pre-validation against the real admin list. These are consequential traits an agent could not derive from the annotations.

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-loads the core action and leads with the most important branch (login vs. default), then the destructive/one-time-password caveat. Dense but every clause carries operational information; slightly long, though nothing is 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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value context (the new password appears once in the response and cannot be retrieved again) and the multi-site disambiguation rule, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'login' is validated against the actual administrator list and rejected if absent, and 'site_url' is only required 'bei mehreren WordPress-Installationen auf derselben Domain'. This conditional requirement is not evident from the schema alone.

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 ('Setzt das Passwort eines WordPress-Admin-Kontos zurück') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling reset_email_password/reset_ftp_password by scoping to WordPress admin accounts. An agent can tell exactly what operation this performs without opening the 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 covers the login vs. no-login decision ('Mit login lässt sich ein BESTIMMTER Benutzername gezielt ansprechen... Ohne login wird das hinterlegte Standard-Admin-Konto zurückgesetzt'), names the alternative tool list_wordpress_admins for discovering valid names, and states the site_url prerequisite for multi-install domains.

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