update_yoast

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. The description only states it is a deprecated alias and gives no information about side effects, required permissions, whether this mutates data, or what happens when invoked. For a tool that clearly mutates SEO metadata (given 'update' in name), there is zero transparency about behavioral traits.

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 short (one clause), which is efficient, but it does not front-load any purpose or usage information. It's under-specified rather than concise. A single sentence could still be high-quality if it conveyed purpose, but this one only communicates deprecation status.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is completely inadequate for a mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage. The agent cannot determine what this tool does, what the parameters mean, what effects it has, or how it differs from the many sibling tools like update_acf_fields, content.update_fields.v1, or seo.set_meta.v1. The deprecation note is partially helpful but the tool is otherwise opaque.

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%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (title, post_id, description) are documented in the schema. The description mentions none of the parameters either. Post_id is required, and one can infer title and description relate to Yoast SEO title/meta description fields, but the description provides no explicit explanation of what each parameter means or expects.

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 says 'DEPRECATED alias for seo.set_meta.v1' which explains the tool is a deprecated alias, but does not actually state what the tool does. It references another tool rather than describing its own function. The name 'update_yoast' implies updating Yoast SEO fields, but the description itself is tautological in that it defines the tool only by its relationship to another tool without saying what operation it performs.

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 implicitly tells the agent to use seo.set_meta.v1 instead ('DEPRECATED alias'), which serves as a when-not-to-use signal. However, it does not explicitly state when one would use this tool vs alternatives, and it doesn't explain what seo.set_meta.v1 does or why it's preferred. The deprecation hint is useful but the guidance is minimal.

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