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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the write/idempotency profile is known. The description adds the preview-unless-confirmed behavior, though that is largely duplicated by the confirm parameter's own schema text. It never says that existing SEO values for omitted fields are overwritten or preserved, which is the key unstated behavior for a destructive tool.

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, zero filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the preview/confirm caveat last. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 destructive, 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 56% schema coverage, the description should clarify partial-update semantics, whether existing SEO metadata is replaced, and any site/edit-permission prerequisites. It covers the 'what' well but leaves the mutation consequences underspecified.

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 description coverage is 56%: five of nine parameters (title, description, canonical, robots, schema, confirm) are already named in the description's field list, but 'site', 'id' and the 'type' enum are left entirely to the schema. The description adds enumeration value but no format or targeting detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 metadata) and enumerates the exact fields written: SEO title, meta description, canonical, robots directive and JSON-LD schema. Scope is bounded to 'one post or page on a connected WordPress site', which no sibling tool covers, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 only usage steering is 'Previews unless confirm is true' – a meaningful workflow hint about the dry-run default, but not a statement of when to prefer this tool over an alternative or what prerequisites (SEO plugin, edit rights) apply. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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