Change WordPress version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it changes the core version, which is a mutation, but does not elaborate on side effects, downtime, or prerequisites. It does not contradict annotations, and the bar is lower due to annotation coverage, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains all necessary information with no filler. It is concise and well-structured.

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 simple 2-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the target (Agency Plan website) and the version constraint. It does not mention explicitly that one should first retrieve available versions, but that is implied by 'available for installation' and the schema. Minor gap, so 4 is appropriate.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (website_uid and version) are already described in the schema. The description repeats that the version must be available, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Changes the installed WordPress core version'), the target resource ('on an Agency Plan website'), and the constraint ('to one of the versions available for installation'). It explicitly scopes to Agency Plan websites, distinguishing it from the similar hosting_updateWordPressCoreV1 tool. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for Agency Plan websites but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like hosting_updateWordPressCoreV1, nor does it advise listing available versions first (via agency-hosting_listAvailableWordPressVersionsV1). Usage is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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