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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — local WordPress authentication, no REST API keys required — but says nothing about failure modes (duplicate SKU, invalid attribute), side effects, or what is returned.

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, front-loaded with the operation and free of padding. The second sentence earns its place by explaining the authentication model, though it is framed around an internal implementation name most agents cannot act on.

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, non-idempotent mutation with an opaque nested payload and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: accepted variation fields, required parent state, and whether the created variation's ID is returned. The authentication note is helpful but does not close these gaps.

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 nominally 100%, but the key payload parameter variationData is an empty object with additionalProperties=true, so the agent cannot tell which fields to supply. The description does not enumerate them, only vaguely pointing at an external 'create_product_variation' method; it adds no meaning beyond the schema rather than compensating for its vacuity.

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: 'Creates a variation for a WooCommerce product.' The word 'variation' distinguishes it from wc_create_product implicitly, but the description never names a sibling or states when a variation is preferable to a standalone product.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. parent product must exist, attributes must be defined), and no alternatives mentioned. The one actionable instruction, 'Call list_sites first', lives in the site_id schema field rather than the description.

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