bulk_find_replace_site

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotent=false. The description adds critical behavioral details: the two-call flow, dry-run outputs (match_count, total, confirmation_token), and that apply iterates pages with auto-backup, validate, and flush. No contradiction with 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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is efficiently structured with key information in minimal words.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the flow and behavior but misses parameter details and error/limitation info. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters (site_id, widget_type, case_sensitive, confirmation). It only indirectly mentions confirmation_token from dry-run, but does not clarify the confirmation parameter or others. This is a major gap.

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 tool finds and replaces plain text on every Elementor page on a single site. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wp_search_replace by emphasizing per-page granularity and no-SSH requirement.

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 explains the two-call flow (dry-run then apply) and compares to wp_search_replace (slower but no SSH, per-page granularity). It provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it.

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