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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses pre-write validation and rollback-on-failure, edit-lock checking, capability-based stripping of disallowed markup, revision creation, and an undo token return. It also discloses the approval gate ("waits for a person to approve it in Royally; nothing on the site changes until then"), which is critical and not inferable from destructiveHint alone.

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 action and the position options, then layered with safety and approval behavior. Nearly every clause earns its place; the trailing "(site: demo.royalplugins.com)" duplicates the site_id enum description and is the only wasted token.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the key return artifact (undo token) and covers validation, locking, revisions and the approval queue. For a destructive, gated write tool, that is everything an agent needs before calling it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the positional semantics of `at` and the path dependency, which the schema already documents, and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it.

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 ("Insert block markup into a post") and immediately enumerates the six insertion positions, which cleanly separates it from siblings like wp_replace_block, wp_move_block, wp_delete_block and wp_update_block_attributes. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 clear context for use: markup is pre-validated via wp_validate_blocks, so the agent knows the failure mode and that nothing is written on error. It does not explicitly say when to prefer wp_replace_block or wp_move_block over this tool, so it falls short of explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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