Install WordPress

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

Beyond the annotations, the description clearly discloses that the operation is asynchronous, that a successful response only means the job is queued, that installation takes 1-2 minutes, and how to poll for completion. It also explains the failure mode when WordPress already exists and overwrite is false. This significantly enriches behavioral understanding beyond the structured hints.

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?

Although relatively long, every paragraph serves a distinct purpose: precondition, preflight check, and async completion behavior. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the structure makes the operational workflow easy to follow. No filler or tautological content is present.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, async behavior, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent when the operation is safe to call, how to avoid a failing job, what the response actually means, and how to determine when the installation is ready. Nothing essential is left unspecified for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents the parameters well. The description adds useful context around overwrite and preflight checks, but it does not meaningfully expand on most parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Install WordPress on an existing website.' This clearly identifies the operation and separates it from related WordPress tools like import, plugin deployment, or core updates. The 'existing website' qualifier sets the scope precisely.

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 explicit preconditions: the website must already exist, and it tells the agent how to create and verify one before calling. It also instructs the agent to preflight for existing installations and explains the overwrite default behavior, plus how to poll for async completion. This is exemplary usage guidance with named endpoints and alternatives.

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