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

Adds substantial value beyond the annotations: pages rebuild on next visit with transient slowness, 'nothing is lost' (reassuring on destructiveness), and it is asynchronous, returning an event_id. This is exactly the kind of consequence and return-shape disclosure the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three tight clauses plus the endpoint, front-loaded with the write indicator and verb. No sentence is wasted and the endpoint is a useful trailing detail.

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?

Given a single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, reversibility, async behavior, and the HTTP endpoint. An agent has everything needed to call and reason about the result.

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 a single well-described site_id parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (purge) and resource (nginx page cache of one site), and the 'WRITE:' prefix immediately signals the operation class. It distinguishes itself from the sibling spinupwp_purge_object_cache by naming the page cache specifically.

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?

The 'WRITE:' prefix and the scoping to 'one site' imply context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not point to the object-cache sibling as an alternative. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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