Publish a draft theme

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false), the description discloses that the active theme is backed up first, making the change reversible, and stresses that this step is the one that alters the live site. It also requires confirm:true, adding important behavioral context about the confirmation gate. This fully surfaces the tool's side effects and safeguards.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The key verb and resource appear first, followed by the backup/reversibility note and the confirm requirement. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded for quick agent parsing.

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 tool with only three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all crucial operating context: the action, its reversibility, its impact on visitors, and the mandatory confirmation. It leaves no critical gaps that would prevent an agent from calling it correctly.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the confirm field's necessity and the theme default. The description only reinforces that confirm is required, which is redundant with the schema. Since the schema carries the full parameter semantics, the description adds no additional meaning, justifying the baseline score.

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 opens with the specific verb 'promote' targeting 'a draft theme to the live site', clearly stating the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like activate_theme or create_draft_theme by emphasizing that this is the only step that changes what visitors see, and that all prior steps are sandboxed. No ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 gives strong context on when to use the tool: when ready to make a draft theme live, and it implicitly contrasts with sandboxed steps beforehand. It also states the mandatory confirm:true requirement, which guides invocation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use', so it stops short of a 5.

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