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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: Polylang silently ignores unknown languages, a post with no language gets pinned to the language given, and the reply returns each page's language and permalink. This is exactly the failure-mode disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then rationale and caveats. It runs five sentences and is somewhat dense, but each carries operative information (prerequisites, silent-failure warning, return contents) rather than filler.

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 an output schema, the description supplies the prerequisites, side effects, and SEO consequences an agent needs. The only gap is the undocumented site_url parameter, though its empty-string default makes it largely self-evident.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does for the key parameter: translations maps language code to post id, with a concrete example {"tr": 120, "de": 340, "ru": 341} and a minimum of two entries. site_url is left unexplained, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource — connecting pages/posts as translations of each other within a Polylang translation group — and immediately distinguishes this from publishing alone. An agent can tell this is a distinct operation from siblings like wordpress_languages or wordpress_update_post.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite (languages must be registered via wordpress_languages action='add' first) and explains the condition under which linking is needed. It doesn't spell out an explicit 'do not use when' exclusion, but the context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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