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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it lists refusal conditions (unknown fields, protected '_' meta keys, Yoast @id nodes, Yoast inactive), states that graph:[] removes nodes, and explains that password-protected records resolve fields/meta/terms as empty. It also notes nodes are added to Yoast's graph rather than replacing it.

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?

Core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence and every clause is substantive, but the single dense paragraph with stacked parentheticals and ellipses is hard to scan. It is information-dense rather than padded, so it earns most of its length.

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?

An output schema exists (preview + warnings), and the description adds that the agent should read both and verify on live page source. Most edge cases are covered, though it never states what happens if both contentId and postType are supplied, leaving one ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: it explains the {contentId, graph} vs {postType, graph} modes, that node type lives inside graph (not as an argument), and enumerates the full template placeholder vocabulary ({{url}}, {{field:<name>}}, {{option:...}}, {{meta:...}}, {{term:...}}) with resolution rules.

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 precise verb+resource (attach schema.org JSON-LD nodes) and two distinct scopes: one record via {contentId, graph} or every record of a post type via {postType, graph}. This clearly separates it from siblings like fabrement-set-seo or fabrement-save-content.

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 the agent to fabrement-get-skill-doc {id:"seo-contract"} before the first call and states the precondition that Yoast must be active or the call is refused. It does not directly contrast against other SEO siblings, so it stops short of the 5 bar, but the operating context is clear.

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