Execute a snippet now

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing that execution happens immediately and bypasses active state — an important behavioral trait not captured by the annotations — though it doesn't elaborate on side effects or failure behavior despite the destructive hint.

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?

Two short sentences with the execution semantics front-loaded and the use case second; no filler, no repetition of the title.

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 usefully states that it returns the snippet's output, and it covers when the snippet executes. However, it leaves the sole parameter undocumented and doesn't address error or side-effect behavior for a tool flagged as destructive, so it is only minimally 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% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the description carries the burden but only implies that 'id' selects 'one stored snippet'. It gives no format, source, or lookup guidance for the identifier.

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 (run) and resource (one stored snippet), plus a scope qualifier ('regardless of active state') that meaningfully distinguishes it from arbitrary-code siblings like wp_php_run. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Ideal dry-run before activation' gives a concrete usage context that tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., wp_php_run for ad-hoc code), so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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