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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it undoes a previously applied measure, operates on exactly one item, and is gated by a reversibility flag exposed elsewhere.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the action and its single-item scope are front-loaded, followed by the gating condition. The emphasis on GENAU EINE prevents a likely misuse (batching reverts).

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 covers purpose, scope, and the prerequisite that determines feasibility. It could say more about what happens to site behavior after a revert or whether re-application is possible, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 domain, measure, and site_url are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the constraint that the measure must be reversible, which is usage rather than parameter meaning; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (zurücknehmen/revert) and a precise resource (a WP-Toolkit hardening measure) with an explicit scope constraint (GENAU EINE). It is unambiguous against the sibling apply_wordpress_security_measure because it describes the inverse operation.

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 precondition: the measure must be reversible (rollback=true) per get_wordpress_hardening, and notes five of nineteen are not. It points the agent to the tool that reveals that condition but does not explicitly name apply_wordpress_security_measure as the contrasting alternative.

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