hosting_checkIfWordPressInstallationsAreValidV1

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

The description explains the tool checks validity and detects issues, implying a read-only operation. It mentions the `force` parameter for fresh validation, but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements. Without annotations, the description carries the burden, but it is moderately transparent.

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: the first states the purpose and detects issues, the second explains how to get the identifiers. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary information.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., validation results). It does not mention return values or error handling. It also does not elaborate on the `force` or `username` parameters, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context that `software_ids` can be obtained from another endpoint, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The `force` and `username` parameters are not elaborated.

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 ('check whether...are valid and working correctly') and the resource ('WordPress installations'). It specifies what it detects ('broken installations caused by missing files, broken plugins, themes'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like hosting_listWordPressInstallationsV1 or hosting_detectWordPressInstallationsV1.

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?

It provides guidance on how to obtain the required `software_ids` from another endpoint, which is helpful, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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