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

Goes well past the annotations: discloses the 32-char token in a transient, the impersonating redirect handler, the required capability ('edit_post on target post_id'), and the Royally approval gate where 'nothing on the site changes until then'. It does not spell out why destructiveHint=true (token grants impersonated access until expiry/revocation) or point to wp_revoke_preview_links for cleanup, leaving a small gap.

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 what the tool does and the agent-only restriction before the implementation detail and capability note. Four dense sentences, each adding decision-relevant information; the parenthetical site tag is the only minor overhead.

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?

With no output schema, the description still names the two returned artifacts (preview_url, edit_url) and tells the agent which to use. Capability requirements, approval gating, and token lifetime are all covered, so an agent can call this correctly without further context.

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%, including post_id, site_id enum, and ttl_minutes (default 15, max 1440), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the site tag, which is the expected baseline when the schema is fully documented.

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 ('Create a token-authenticated preview URL for a post/page/CPT') and immediately scopes the purpose (agent self-validation of rendered output without WP session cookies). This clearly separates it from sibling read/verify tools like wp_verify_rendered_page and lifecycle tools like wp_revoke_preview_links.

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 explicit when-to-use ('so an agent can self-validate rendered output') and an explicit when-not/do-this-instead instruction ('preview_url is for AGENT self-validation — do NOT share with the end user; share edit_url instead'). It does not name a competing sibling tool for the case where a plain read suffices, but the artifact-level routing is unusually clear.

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