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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the Royally approval gate ('nothing on the site changes until then'), the markup validation step, the site the tool operates on, and the deletion route. The destructiveHint annotation is consistent with a tool that ultimately creates a persistent object, and the approval note adds real operational context.

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 purpose, then the synced semantics, then the mutation/approval caveats. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical site note interrupts the flow slightly.

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 approval workflow and no output schema, the description covers validation, approval gating, and cleanup. It does not say what is returned (e.g., the new pattern ID) or how to check approval status, which leaves a small gap.

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%, but the description compensates for the key gap by defining what synced=true vs false actually means behaviorally. markup and site_id are documented in the schema, including a reference to wp_get_post/wp_get_synced_pattern as models; only 'title' lacks any guidance, in either place.

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 ('Create a pattern from block markup') and immediately elaborates the two modes of the created object. It also names a sibling tool (wp_delete_post) for the removal path, so an agent can distinguish creation from deletion without opening schemas.

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?

Explains the practical consequence of the synced flag, which is the main decision point, and clarifies that markup is validated first and that the change is gated on human approval. It does not explicitly contrast with wp_update_synced_pattern or block-insertion tools, so there is a minor gap.

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