Update WordPress SEO Meta (Yoast)

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

Annotations already indicate the destructive and non-read-only nature. The description adds implementation detail ('Writes via WP REST's meta sub-object using Yoast's underlying postmeta keys') and a verification note. However, it does not clarify whether omitted fields are left unchanged or reset, leaving ambiguity about partial updates.

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-structured with sections for Args, Returns, and Note, but the Args section duplicates the schema. It could be more concise without losing key information. Still, it is organized and readable.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters, the description covers return value, verification steps, and Yoast-specific limitations. However, the gap regarding partial vs. full update behavior prevents a perfect score, as agents may incorrectly assume that all fields are overwritten when only some are provided.

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 parameter semantics are already fully documented. The description's Args section mostly restates the schema without adding new meaning. The only marginal addition is the 'undefined = leave Yoast's default' clarification for noindex, which is already present in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: updating Yoast SEO meta on a post or page, with a specific list of fields (title, description, canonical, noindex, focus keyword, OG, Twitter). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning Yoast and noting that RankMath/AIOSEO are not supported.

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 provides a clear exclusion ('This is for Yoast specifically. RankMath / AIOSEO sites need different keys') and suggests verifying with wp_get_seo_meta. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over wp_update_post or wp_set_page_meta, but the Yoast-specific context implies a clear use case.

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