WordPress: Opcache reset

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description is not the sole carrier here. It adds non-structured context that annotations cannot convey: a minimum companion-plugin version (v2.18.4+) and a required capability (manage_options) on the calling application password. It does not explain the transient performance impact of a reset, which would have pushed this higher.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it does, when it matters, and what is required. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the prerequisite details are compacted parenthetically rather than buried.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, trigger, plugin prerequisite and permission requirement well. The gap is that its only input is entirely undefined across both schema and prose, leaving the agent to guess the value to supply. Adding one clause about the expected site identifier would make this 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 parameter "site", and the description says nothing about its expected form, whether it accepts a site ID, URL, or alias, or whether it must match the credential's site. With only one parameter this is the primary failure mode for the definition. The phrase "the calling application password" hints at an association but gives no usable format guidance.

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 ("Reset PHP OPcache") and scopes it to "the WordPress origin via the airano-mcp-bridge companion plugin", which is far more precise than a generic cache-clear. The required plugin version is stated inline, so an agent knows the capability gate before invoking. It is distinguishable from a generic cache purge by its explicit PHP OPcache framing.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger condition: "Useful after deploying theme/plugin PHP changes on hosts with opcache.validate_timestamps disabled." That is a real decision rule rather than a restatement of the name. It stops short of when-not-to-use or naming a sibling alternative, so it is not a 5.

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