update_seo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the PRO plan requirement but does not state whether the update is destructive, how it affects existing settings, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and resource list, with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the plan restriction, making it maximally concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has no schema, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the expected input structure, whether the update replaces or merges with existing settings, or any consequences. Given the tool's moderate complexity (multiple SEO components), this one-sentence description is inadequate.

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?

The input schema defines zero parameters (additionalProperties: true), so the 0-params baseline of 4 applies. The description lists the content types affected but does not specify how to structure or pass them as parameters. Since additionalProperties is allowed, the description could have provided more detail, but the baseline for no defined parameters is met.

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 action ('Update') and the resources affected ('meta, OpenGraph, JSON-LD, sitemap'), which differentiates it from sibling update_* tools focused on branding, navigation, or AI settings. However, it lacks explicit scope (e.g., workspace context) and could be more precise about the update action, so it falls just short of a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The plan restriction ('PRO plan or higher') is a prerequisite, but there are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, despite many sibling tools with overlapping update functionality.

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