wordpress_audit_hook_disable

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool clears configuration and stops events, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether configuration is permanently deleted, if the action is reversible, or what happens if already disabled). This leaves important behavioral aspects unclear.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary action. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix may add minor ambiguity but overall the structure is efficient and waste-free.

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 simple schema and no output schema, the description omits critical context: what happens after disabling (e.g., can it be re-enabled via configure?), idempotency, and how the site parameter is used. For a configuration-modifying tool, the lack of completeness reduces usefulness.

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 input schema has one parameter ('site') with 0% description coverage and no type details beyond 'string'. The description does not explain what 'site' represents (e.g., site ID, URL, domain), nor how to format it. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate but fails to add any parameter semantics.

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 clears the audit-hook configuration (endpoint_url, secret, events) and stops forwarding events. The verb 'clear' and specific resource make the purpose precise and distinguishable from sibling tools like wordpress_audit_hook_configure and wordpress_audit_hook_status.

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 only mentions a permission requirement ('Requires manage_options'), but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. There is no explicit context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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