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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavior: execution goes through Royally and waits for human approval, so nothing lands on the site immediately. That materially changes how an agent should report results. It falls short of 5 because it says nothing about what happens on rejection, what the call returns, or how the pending state can be inspected.

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-loaded with the core action, which is good, but the remainder is fragmented parenthetical asides. "(site: demo.royalplugins.com)" repeats the site_id enum description, and the excerpt sentence discusses a field that does not exist in the schema, so it does not earn its place.

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, the description covers the approval gate but omits what a successful call returns (e.g., the new page ID), whether the page is retrievable while pending, and how this differs from wp_create_post. The excerpt sentence adds confusion rather than completeness since no excerpt parameter exists.

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 50%: date, parent, and site_id are documented in-schema while title, content, and status are bare. The description clarifies the status/date combination for scheduling, but that partly restates date's own schema description, and it adds nothing about title, content format (blocks vs raw HTML), or parent semantics. Baseline 3 given the partial coverage.

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?

"Create new page" gives a specific verb and resource, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like wp_create_post, mcp-easy-ai__wp_create_post, or elementor-create-page, leaving the agent to guess which creator to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description tells you how to schedule (status="future" plus date) but never states when to use this tool versus wp_create_post or wp_update_page, nor any prerequisites for creation. Adequate hints, no routing guidance.

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