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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint/readOnlyHint/idempotent, but the description adds materially new behavior: a 30-field-per-call batch limit, that dry_run=true is the default and only previews, that committed runs return a batch id, and that replaced values are retained 90 days and restorable via seo_fields_undo. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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, front-loaded with the action and object, then escalating to preview behavior, batch id, and undo window. No filler; every clause carries operational 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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what a write returns (a batch id) and how to reverse it (seo_fields_undo, 90-day window). Combined with the parameter coverage and destructive annotations, nothing needed to invoke this 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 the schema lacks: the provenance of the 'id' values (from seo_fields_list), the 30-item cap on 'changes', and the preview-vs-write semantics of 'dry_run'. It does not explain the 'site'/'server'/'type' interplay beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Set SEO titles, meta descriptions or image alt texts') plus the two supported platforms (WordPress, Magento 2). It clearly separates itself from seo_fields_list (source of ids) and seo_fields_undo (revert), so an agent can pick the right tool without opening sibling schemas.

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 ties usage to the sibling workflow ('by the ids seo_fields_list gave') and names the recovery path (seo_fields_undo with the batch). It also spells out the dry_run default, which is the key decision point for previewing vs committing. It never states an explicit when-not condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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