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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: only supplied fields are written and each overwrites the stored value, tags and line breaks are stripped, no undo point is recorded, required capabilities are stated, and the return payload (updated, provider, changed) is described. It also covers the refusal and not-found error paths, which the destructiveHint annotation alone could not convey.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the action and the plugin precedence. Every sentence carries information, though the permission and undo notes could be separated for faster scanning.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by naming the returned fields, and it covers provider precedence, error conditions, permissions, and irreversibility. Nothing an agent needs to call this destructive write correctly is missing.

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 meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies the overwrite semantics of supplying a field and that stripping occurs on the values written. This reinforces rather than merely repeats the per-parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb (set) and resource (SEO title/meta description/focus keyword) and scopes it to the active SEO plugin's own fields, explicitly naming Yoast then Rank Math. It is clearly distinguishable from wp_seo_get and wp_seo_detect without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit context: which plugin wins when both are active, that the call is refused with neither (including All in One SEO), and points to wp_seo_get for reading. It does not, however, address why one would use this rather than wp_update_post_meta for the same data.

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