wordpress_set_twitter_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('Set'), but does not specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies site metadata, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly, though it could benefit from additional context for completeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, usage guidelines, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly and what to expect in return.

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 description does not mention any parameters, and the input schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter (postId). Since there is only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to add any semantic context (e.g., what postId represents, format, or constraints), reducing the score to 3 as it does not compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 Twitter Card meta tags for social sharing' clearly states the verb ('Set') and resource ('Twitter Card meta tags') with a specific purpose for social sharing. It distinguishes from many siblings (e.g., wordpress_set_og_tags, wordpress_set_schema_markup) by focusing on Twitter Cards, but does not explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like wordpress_set_seo_meta, which might overlap in function.

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, such as other SEO or social media tagging tools in the sibling list (e.g., wordpress_set_og_tags, wordpress_set_seo_meta). It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for application, offering only a basic statement of purpose without usage instructions.

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