WordPress: Audit hook configure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's main added value is the authorization requirement (manage_options) and the statement that it returns the resulting status. It does not disclose the destructive consequence the annotations imply — e.g. whether existing webhook configuration or secrets are overwritten, or what happens to omitted fields given the nullable defaults.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences that each carry information: what is configured, which fields, and what is returned. The '[UNIFIED]' tag adds no meaning to an agent, but otherwise there is no filler.

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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the payload well and notes the return value, so an agent can call it. Gaps remain on overwrite semantics for a non-idempotent destructive write and on the accepted event vocabulary for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema documentation.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it maps four of the five parameters to purpose (endpoint URL, shared HMAC secret, enabled flag, hooked event list). It also adds a constraint absent from the schema ('≥16 chars'). Only the 'site' parameter is left unexplained and the accepted event names/format for 'events' are not specified.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Configure the companion plugin's audit-hook webhook') and enumerates exactly which settings are written (endpoint_url, HMAC secret, enabled flag, hooked events), so an agent knows precisely what the call does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wordpress_audit_hook_status or wordpress_audit_hook_disable, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the setup/mutation counterpart to the status and disable tools. The one real guideline given is the 'Requires manage_options' prerequisite, which is valuable. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or pointer to an alternative for read-only inspection.

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