Verify a connected site

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals that it sends a signed test request, checks wp_rest and git_pr connections, and returns a capabilities map. It also notes the active-org requirement and safety for draft-only tokens. The 'CAPABILITY: draft' sentence adds some confusion but does not contradict the annotations.

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 longer than average but every sentence contributes concrete guidance (when to use, what it verifies, troubleshooting, return value). The final CAPABILITY sentence is slightly confusing but not entirely wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly states it returns the refreshed capabilities map, explains failure modes (404/405), and ties into adjacent tools (autoseo_configure, autoseo_generate_post). It provides a self-contained decision framework for an AI agent.

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?

The schema already provides complete coverage of the single 'id' parameter with a source reference. The description adds meaningful constraints—'must belong to the active org'—and clarifies its role in the verification flow, going 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Re-run the capability probe for a connected site', and the title 'Verify a connected site' matches. It clearly distinguishes this verification tool from siblings like autoseo_configure and autoseo_generate_post.

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 explicitly instructs when to call: after deploying the /autoseo-publish endpoint and before configuring or generating. It also specifies re-call scenarios (secret rotation, infrastructure migration) and how to interpret 404/405 responses, giving clear workflow context.

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