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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: a hard reversibility precondition and the concrete warning that a subset of measures cannot be undone, which directly shapes whether the agent should attempt the call.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core action and then the precondition. Zero filler; every clause carries a constraint the agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, but for a targeted revert operation the description covers the key preconditions and scope adequately. The main residual gap is the absence of an explicit pointer to the inverse operation for the case where a measure is not yet applied.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that exactly one measure is reverted and that valid measure identifiers are enumerated by get_wordpress_hardening, reinforcing the semantics of the 'measure' parameter beyond the schema text.

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 resource (WP-Toolkit-Härtungsmaßnahme) with an explicit scope constraint ('GENAU EINE'). This distinguishes it cleanly from its inverse sibling apply_wordpress_security_measure without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit precondition: only reversible measures (rollback=true per get_wordpress_hardening) can be reverted, and quantifies the exclusion (5 of 19 are not). It points to the prerequisite tool to consult, though it never names the inverse tool apply_wordpress_security_measure as the alternative you would use instead.

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