multisite_scaffold_network_admin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It vaguely mentions 'capability checks' but does not disclose what files are generated, whether overwriting occurs, prerequisites, or side effects. This is insufficient for a scaffolding tool.

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 concise (21 words) and front-loads the purpose. It includes a helpful second sentence for context. No wasted words, though could be slightly more structured.

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 complexity of a scaffolding tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits output details, prerequisites, and differentiation from similar tools like 'scaffold_settings_page'.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions; it does not explain how parameters relate to the generated components.

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 'Generate a WordPress Multisite network admin page' and lists specific components (menu, capability checks, settings form, ServiceProvider). It distinguishes from siblings like 'multisite_scaffold_site_option' by specifying 'network-wide settings'.

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 implies usage for network-wide settings ('For plugins that need network-wide settings') but does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives among the many sibling scaffold tools.

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