Strip Leading Cover Hero

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Remove' and 'strips/writes' while adding important safety guarantees (only first+cover blocks removed, others unaffected). It also discloses server-side processing, scalability, and the per-id return shape, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and well-structured: a single-purpose intro, a safety note, a server-side scaling note, a clean Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description spells out the exact per-id return fields. It covers prerequisites (admin), side effects (destructive but scoped), behavior on pages without a leading cover, and the dry_run option, making the tool's behavior fully understandable.

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 descriptive parameter comments; the description's Args section mostly paraphrases the schema without adding new parameter semantics. The dry_run and response_format entries repeat defaults/enums already in the schema. Return shape is mentioned but that's not parameter-specific, so 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Remove the embedded leading core/cover hero block from one or more pages' with a specific resource (core/cover hero block). It also explains the intended effect (theme's page-title bar takes over) and differentiates this from generic post/page editing tools among siblings.

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 description explicitly states when it is safe to use: only removes a block that is both the first block and a core/cover, and pages without a leading cover are left unchanged. It also notes the admin requirement, mentions dry_run for previewing, and clarifies server-side processing for scaling. This gives an agent clear criteria for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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