Set Page/Post Meta

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

Annotations already declare this is a write/destructive operation. The description adds valuable context: it requires admin, POSTs to core REST, and returns the updated meta object. It also discloses the REST-registration limitation, going beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is well-organized with a purpose paragraph, an Args list, and a Returns line. It is concise but the Args list duplicates schema information, making it slightly redundant. Still, it earns its place overall.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, permissions (admin), the REST mechanism, the meta-key registration constraint, and the return value. It does not discuss error handling for invalid keys, but this is a minor gap given the annotations and schema richness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description's Args list largely repeats the schema, though it reinforces the meta example. It does not add new meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Write post meta on a page/post', a specific verb and resource, and gives a concrete Kadence example. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wp_update_post (which updates post content) and wp_get_post (which reads).

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 states the tool writes meta directly via REST and notes the constraint that only REST-registered meta keys can be written, which implies when this specialized tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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