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

Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is an idempotent mutation. The description adds specifics beyond that: backup creation, verification, and aborts if the backup is not verifiable, plus an honest 'unverified' state after post-read. It does not state required permissions or how the change is applied, so despite useful details it remains at a solid but not exceptional level.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the subsequent sentences each carry behavioral information (backup, refusal, verification, customer follow-up). It is a dense block rather than a structured bullet list, but no sentence is genuinely wasted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers failure modes, the no-op condition, the verification result ('unverified'), and even what the response will contain. Everything the agent needs to call and interpret the result is given.

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?

The description explains the conditional need for site_url ('Gibt es auf der Domain mehrere WordPress-Installationen, ist site_url nötig'), adding actionable meaning beyond the schema. This is a useful clarification, though it overlaps with information the schema already provides.

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 ('Stellt die Permalink-Struktur einer WordPress-Installation ... um') with the exact scope of the change (from ?p=123 to a pretty URL) and the target formats. An agent immediately knows this is a WordPress permalink mutation tool, distinct from siblings like get_wordpress_status or update_wordpress_core.

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 defines when it acts (only plain structure) and when it does not ('Hat die Installation schon eine schöne Struktur, wird nichts verändert'), including the reason and a redirect to manual action by the customer. It also states the precondition for site_url, so the agent knows the branching condition before calling.

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