Create login links

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not responsible for basic mutation disclosure. The word 'temporary' adds a small behavioral trait, but there is no detail about link expiration, consequences for existing links, or any required permissions. It does not contradict the 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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the supplementary instruction about obtaining the identifier is placed where it is most useful. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with a clear action, the description is mostly sufficient to make a call. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not indicate what the response will contain (i.e., the generated links) or clarify what kind of username is expected. An agent can invoke it but may not know how to interpret the result.

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, but the description adds meaningful provenance for 'software' by explaining it is the WordPress installation identifier and pointing to the exact endpoint and field where it can be found. The 'username' parameter remains weakly described as 'username parameter' even in the schema, but the description does compensate for the key parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create temporary auto-login links for the specified WordPress installation.' This clearly states what the tool does and on what entity. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar-sounding sibling hosting_getInstallationJWTTokenV1, so it stops short of 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?

The description gives useful context by telling the user that the WordPress installation identifier belongs in the path and can be obtained from a specific GET endpoint. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it; the usage is only implied by the action name.

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