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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it warns that changing slug moves the archive, its pagination and feed, and 404s the old URL (a destructive consequence), clarifies title as the SEO-title fallback, and states blocks are not a field here. This is rich disclosure beyond any structured field.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by alternatives, a WARNING, and a rule. It is dense with cross-references but every sentence earns its place; slightly packed for readability.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, parameter meaning, destructive consequences, prerequisites, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: slug IS the archive address, and title is both the heading and the SEO-title fallback. It reinforces and extends what the schema already documents.

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/edit) and resource (the page describing a post-type archive), and names exactly what it edits (title, slug). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings set-seo and save-content, so an agent can route without opening other 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?

Explicitly routes SEO fields to set-seo {archive: postType}, intro/FAQ content to save-content, and instructs reading get-skill-doc {id:"seo-contract"} before the first call. When-to-use and alternatives are both named with conditions.

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