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

Goes far beyond the destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false annotations: it discloses the automatic pre-backup and its verification gate, that failure aborts the update, the up-to-30-minute runtime, and the honest 'unverified' outcome instead of a false success/failure. This is exactly the extra behavioral context the annotations cannot carry.

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-loads the action, then the backup safety gate, then the timeout behavior. It is on the longer side, but nearly every clause carries operational meaning (precondition, expected duration, fallback status check).

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, long-running mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return semantics ('unverified' vs success) and the follow-up step. Nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.

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 both parameters (domain, site_url) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline of 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+resource ('Aktualisiert den WordPress-Core auf die neueste Version') with scope clearly bounded to core, which the agent can distinguish from the sibling update_wordpress_item (plugins/themes). An agent knows exactly what this mutates 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 a concrete precondition (backup must be created and verifiable, otherwise no update) and explicitly routes the agent to get_wordpress_status when the result is 'unverified'. It lacks explicit 'use X instead for plugins' routing, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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