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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses concrete behaviors: an empty string clears a page field, verification codes are never replaced silently (existing value returned, nothing written), and replacing a code drops another property's verification. These are exactly the mutation consequences the annotations can only flag generically.

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?

Front-loaded with the field inventory, then organized into id/term_id, page-fix, verification, and clearing/overwrite concerns. Dense rather than padded, though a few clauses ('the SEO plugin keeps term fields somewhere completely different from page fields') run longer than needed.

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 12-parameter, zero-required mutation tool with no output schema needed (one exists), the description covers target selection, field semantics, verification side effects, and overwrite safety. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for most: id vs term_id, taxonomy default, description/title for fixing flagged pages, google_verification accepting a whole meta tag, and overwrite gating. It leaves noindex and site_url unexplained, so not fully compensatory.

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?

The description states a specific verb (Set) and resource (SEO fields on a WordPress site) and enumerates the exact field set: meta description, meta title, canonical, focus keyword, and Google/Bing verification codes. It distinguishes itself from siblings wordpress_seo (read), wordpress_terms (term body text/ids), and seo_audit (missing-description detection) by name.

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?

Explicit when-to-use routing: id for posts/pages, term_id+taxonomy for category/tag archives, no id for site verification, and an instruction to run wordpress_seo first to see current values. It also names wordpress_terms as the tool for finding term ids. The overwrite flow ('check with the user before passing overwrite=true') gives a concrete conditional.

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