wordpress_set_canonical_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens if the URL is invalid, or what the response looks like. It mentions no rate limits, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just four words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and target. While it may be too brief for completeness, as a standalone statement it's efficiently 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?

For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the SEO context, error handling, permissions needed, or what constitutes a valid canonical URL. Given the complexity of SEO operations and lack of structured documentation, this description leaves too many gaps for reliable tool invocation.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'canonical URL' and 'post' which loosely map to the two parameters (postId and canonicalUrl), but it doesn't explain what format the canonicalUrl should be (absolute vs relative, valid URL requirements) or what postId represents (numeric ID, slug, etc.). It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 'Set canonical URL for post' clearly states the action (set) and target (canonical URL for post), but it's somewhat vague about what a canonical URL is in WordPress context and doesn't differentiate from similar tools like wordpress_set_seo_meta or wordpress_set_og_tags that also handle SEO metadata. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity about the SEO purpose.

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. There are multiple SEO-related tools in the sibling list (wordpress_set_seo_meta, wordpress_set_og_tags, wordpress_set_schema_markup), but the description doesn't explain when canonical URL setting is appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed. Usage is implied only by the tool name.

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