wordpress_wp_search_replace_dry_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates the safety profile (read-only preview), but omits other critical behavioral details such as return format, whether serialized PHP data is handled (crucial for WordPress), and performance characteristics for large databases.

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 front-loaded with the operation type and dry-run warning. There is slight redundancy between 'DRY RUN ONLY' and 'NEVER makes actual changes,' and the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained noise, but overall it is efficient with no filler sentences.

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 high-stakes database operation with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It covers the safety-critical dry-run aspect but leaves critical gaps regarding parameter formats, return structure, and WordPress-specific behaviors like serialized data handling.

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%, requiring the description to compensate significantly. While 'Search and replace' implies the old_string/new_string parameters, the description fails to explain the 'site' identifier format, the 'tables' parameter semantics (comma-separated vs array, what null defaults to), or search options (case sensitivity, regex support).

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 performs a 'Search and replace in database' with explicit '(DRY RUN ONLY)' qualification. It distinguishes itself from actual mutation tools via 'NEVER makes actual changes,' making the safe, preview-only nature unambiguous despite the '[UNIFIED]' prefix being unexplained.

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 provides explicit context for when to use the tool ('Use for migration planning'), but lacks guidance on when not to use it and fails to name specific sibling alternatives for executing actual database changes versus just previewing them.

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