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 safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the useful point that this is a high-leverage, non-core capability, but it never states that existing SEO values are overwritten or how the preview/confirm gate (documented only in the schema) behaves. Adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentences with the field list front-loaded and the rationale appended. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is not obligated on return values, but for a 9-parameter destructive mutation it omits overwrite semantics and the preview/confirm workflow (only implied by the schema). It is nearly complete but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 56%, with descriptions for title, description, robots, schema and confirm, but none for site, id, type and canonical. The description lists the settable fields, which helps map canonical (undescribed in schema), but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already gives. Baseline 3 fits.

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 the exact resource fields it governs (SEO title, meta description, canonical, robots, JSON-LD) scoped to 'one post or page'. It is readily distinguishable from siblings like wp_write_post and wp_replace_in_post and even explains the gap it fills ('core WordPress does not expose these over the API').

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 description justifies why the tool is valuable but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing against alternatives such as wp_write_post or wp_replace_in_post. The agent must infer the boundary itself.

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