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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns that every URL on the site is rewritten, notes automatic rewrite-rule flushing, explains exactly what dry_run previews, and states that Royally requires human approval before any site change occurs. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and adds meaningful safety detail.

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 description is front-loaded with the action and its consequences, then adds the admin requirement, examples, dry-run behavior, and approval flow. Each sentence contributes operational or safety-relevant information.

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 update tool with no output schema, the definition covers prerequisites, side effects, preview behavior, and approval flow. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly or choose dry_run first.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by listing common structure values and by detailing what dry_run returns, which goes beyond the schema's brief parameter descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: updating the WordPress permalink structure. It is clearly distinguishable from the read-oriented sibling wp_get_permalink_structure and from generic option tools like wp_update_option.

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 gives clear operational context: an admin toggle is required, common permalink patterns are supplied, and dry_run is explained for previewing. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative to use instead for reading the current structure, but the usage conditions are clear.

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