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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it discloses that a pre-restore backup is automatically created and verified first, that restoration is aborted if that verification fails, and critically that the job is asynchronous — acceptance only, no completion confirmation, and post-acceptance failures (e.g. DB import) are silently unreported. It even prescribes the exact response wording the agent must relay.

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 destructive action and its effect, then the safety mechanism, then the async caveat. It is fairly long, but each sentence carries operational weight — particularly the mandated 'angestoßen, nicht bestätigt' wording — so little is expendable.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining exactly what the tool will and will not report about the outcome, and by warning that verification is only possible by the customer on the live site. Nothing an agent needs to call or correctly report on this tool 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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's mention of site_url for multi-install domains simply reinforces that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Spielt ein ... WordPress-Backup ... zurück') and immediately defines scope: it overwrites the current live state of the site. It also names the source of the backup (get_wordpress_backups), distinguishing it from create_wordpress_backup and delete_wordpress_backup without needing 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?

Points the agent to get_wordpress_backups for the filename and states the condition for supplying site_url (multiple WordPress installations on the same domain). It does not spell out when NOT to restore (e.g. staging vs production) or prerequisites like permissions, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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