Manage code snippets

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It adds key behavioral details: snippets are created disabled by default, PHP syntax is checked before save, and disabling can be done without touching code. It does not mention the confirm requirement for delete or side effects of update, but those are covered in the schema. The description discloses the most critical safety behaviors without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences long and front-loads the core purpose and primary use case. It provides essential safety information (disabled by default, syntax check) without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical: first the why-to-use, then critical operational details. No fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, multiple actions), the description covers the key context: why to use it, safety behaviors, and a hint about activation. It does not explicitly mention the confirm parameter for delete or the site_id fallback behavior, but these are fully documented in the schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's primary purpose and key operational constraints, though it could mention the delete confirmation requirement for completeness.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions that snippets are created disabled and PHP syntax is checked, which relates to behavior rather than parameter semantics. The schema already explains the opening PHP tag omission and location preferences, so the description adds no extra parameter insight. It neither enhances nor degrades the schema's completeness.

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 manages code snippets by adding PHP, CSS, or JavaScript as managed entities instead of editing theme files. It explicitly names the action (Add) and the resource (snippet), and differentiates from the alternative approach of theme file editing. The purpose is unambiguous and the description distinguishes this tool from siblings like write_theme_file.

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 explicitly advises using this tool over editing theme files, citing survival of theme updates and easy disabling. It also gives important usage context: new snippets are created disabled and must be activated in wp-admin, and PHP snippets are syntax-checked before saving. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and safety instructions, leaving no ambiguity about when to prefer this tool.

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