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

Annotations declare destructive=true and openWorld=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it promises an automatic pre-update backup, refuses to update if the backup can't be created or verified, warns the operation can take up to 30 minutes, and explains the honest 'unverified' outcome on timeout. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive, long-running operation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the safety guarantee, then the timing/timeout behavior. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information and none is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining the possible outcome states ('unverified' vs success/failure) and the recommended follow-up. For a destructive long-running tool, nothing essential to 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% with only two parameters (domain, site_url), both fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Aktualisiert den WordPress-Core') plus the target ('auf die neueste Version'), which an agent can distinguish from the sibling update_wordpress_item (items like plugins/themes). The purpose is unambiguous 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?

Gives clear triggering context and names the follow-up tool get_wordpress_status for the timeout case. However, it never explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling update_wordpress_item or states when NOT to run a core update, so a full 5 for explicit alternatives is not warranted.

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