mcp_flush_rewrite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain the effect of flushing rewrite rules, whether the operation is safe or reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to the site afterward.

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 a single four-word verb phrase with no filler and the action is front-loaded. However, its extreme brevity leaves no structural elaboration, so it is efficient but not ideal.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and full schema coverage, but there are no annotations or output schema. The description does not cover when to use the tool or its behavioral consequences, leaving significant contextual gaps for an agent.

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 100%, and the single 'site' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Site id (see list_sites)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 phrase 'Flush permalink rewrite rules' names a specific verb and resource, so an agent can tell what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from similar flush-style siblings such as mcp_flush_cache, so it does not reach a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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