hosting_installWordPressV1

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

The description discloses that the operation is asynchronous, typical duration (1-2 minutes), and the need to poll the installations endpoint to confirm completion. It also explains what happens when overwrite is false and WordPress already exists. However, it does not mention possible failure reasons (e.g., incompatible PHP version) or authentication requirements, which are minor gaps given no 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action, followed by prerequisites, pre-checks, and async behavior. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity. No redundant 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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, async operation, preconditions), the description covers key aspects: prerequisites, pre-check steps, async behavior, and polling instructions. It also describes the response meaning (job queued). It does not mention error scenarios or rate limits, but for a tool without output schema, this is adequate. Slight gap in not explaining how to handle the overwrite parameter more deeply.

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 description is not required to add much per-parameter detail. It does provide context for how parameters like 'username' and 'domain' are used in pre-checks and polling, and explains 'overwrite' behavior. However, the schema description for 'username' is vague ('username parameter'), and the description does not significantly enhance the schema's understanding of parameters beyond what is already stated.

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 'Install WordPress on an existing website,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hosting_createWebsiteV1 (creating a website) and hosting_importWordpressWebsite (importing an existing site), making the tool's purpose 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 explicitly states prerequisites (website must exist), provides step-by-step guidance (create website if needed, check for existing installation, call GET installations before proceeding), and explains the overwrite parameter behavior. This helps an agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a website first.

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