update_option

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 disclosing behavior. The description only marks it as deprecated; it doesn't reveal what operation it performs (mutation), what it affects, or whether it still functions or errors. The deprecation status is the only behavioral signal, which is minimal for a write operation.

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 entire description is one short sentence: 'DEPRECATED alias for site.update_option.v1.' It's concise and front-loaded with the most important information (deprecation and replacement). It earns its place despite being short, though it could be less terse by including the replacement tool's purpose.

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-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, this is under-specified. The description gives only deprecation info. While the output schema exists and the enum self-documents, the description doesn't explain what each key does (blogname, blogdescription, blog_public), what the value format should be, or what the outcome is. Since the tool is deprecated and points to a live sibling, completeness is somewhat mitigated, but it's still thin.

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 should compensate. However, the input schema itself is fairly self-explanatory: 'key' is an enum of three options (blog_public, blogdescription, blogname), and 'value' is a generic field. The schema provides the semantics via the enum values, and the description adds nothing about parameter formats or effects. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the enum makes key self-documenting.

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 only states it's a 'DEPRECATED alias for site.update_option.v1.' This tells the agent the tool is deprecated and points to a replacement, but doesn't describe what the tool actually does (updates site options). The purpose is only indirectly inferrable from the sibling name and parameter names, not from the description itself.

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 explicitly states this is deprecated and should be replaced with site.update_option.v1. This is excellent deprecation guidance — the agent knows to prefer the sibling tool. It doesn't elaborate on when to use it, but the deprecation notice effectively tells the agent NOT to use this tool in favor of the named alternative.

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