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

Annotations declare destructive/openWorld, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the required capability (edit_post on post_id), the full-revocation scope across all creators, and a critical approval gate ('waits for a person to approve it in Royally; nothing on the site changes until then'). That approval detail materially changes how an agent should sequence the call.

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?

The revocation scope is front-loaded and the sentences are dense with useful content. The inline '(site: demo.royalplugins.com)' aside slightly interrupts flow, but there is no 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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, it covers scope, permissions, and the human-approval workflow. It does not state what the tool returns (e.g., affected link count or pending-approval status), which would help an agent confirm the outcome.

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 100% with only two params, so the schema already documents post_id and site_id fully. The description's 'one post/page/CPT' wording reinforces post_id but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 ('End every preview link made with wp_create_preview_link') scoped to one post/page/CPT and explicitly broad ('whoever made it'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling wp_create_preview_link that produces the 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?

It anchors usage to the counterpart tool (links created by wp_create_preview_link) and notes that subsequently created links still work, implying re-invocation semantics. It stops short of enumerating when a caller should prefer this over other post-editing tools, but the context is unambiguous.

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