Change site settings

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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds behavior that isn't in them: invalid admin_email silently ignored, per-field outcome buckets (changed/adjusted/failed), whole-call error only when every write fails, and an undo token that may be null while the writes still land. That is exactly the mutation context an agent needs before calling.

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 operation and its fields, then the outcome contract, then the undo caveat, then the permission gate — no filler sentences. The clause 'the call is an error naming that only' is compressed to the point of being slightly awkward, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden itself and does so: changed/adjusted/failed buckets and the undo token are all defined. Combined with the permission requirement and the all-fail error condition, an agent can call this correctly without further inference.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description still adds semantics the schema doesn't: omitted fields are preserved, an invalid email is dropped rather than erroring, and timezone rejection surfaces per-field. It doesn't add format examples beyond the schema's own Europe/Zurich note.

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?

Specific verb (update) plus resource (common site settings) and an enumeration of the fields in scope. It explicitly names the counterpart reader wp_get_site_settings, so an agent can separate read from write without opening either schema.

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?

Partial-update semantics are spelled out ('fields left out keep their values') and the read alternative is named, plus the manage_options prerequisite. It doesn't state exclusions (e.g. when to use wp_update_user or wp_seo_set instead), so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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