site.update_option.v1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms this is a write/mutation operation ('Update') but does not disclose whether changes take effect immediately, whether site cache is invalidated, whether multi-site options are affected, or any side effects. With zero annotation coverage, the description should disclose more about behavioral consequences of modifying site options.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the critical allowed-keys list. No filler. It's efficient, though it could be restructured to lead with the allowed keys more prominently rather than appending them.

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 2-param tool with an enum covering one param and an output schema present, the description is adequate but not complete. The open 'value' parameter lacks any guidance on expected formats (boolean for blog_public, string for blogname/blogdescription), and no behavioral context is given. Given zero annotations, a mutation tool that writes to a site's wp_options should disclose more to be fully complete.

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 description must compensate. 'Allowed keys: blog_public, blogdescription, blogname' adds value by clarifying which keys are valid, which reinforces the enum. However, it does not explain the expected format/type of the 'value' parameter (e.g., string vs int for blog_public), which is critical since 'value' is typed as an open object with no schema constraints.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Update wp_options via custom endpoint') and lists the allowed keys, which clearly differentiates what keys can be updated. It's clear in purpose, though the mention of 'custom endpoint' is slightly vague about what underlying mechanism is used. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like update_option and wp_request.

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 names the allowed keys, which implicitly communicates scope. However, it provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions relative to siblings like 'update_option', 'wp_request', or 'content.update_fields.v1', and no indication of when one should prefer this over alternatives. The usage context is implied by the key enum but not explicit.

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