wp_set_acf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well. It discloses that dry_run writes nothing, that apply mode writes and verifies values, that leading-underscore selectors are rejected and reported as skipped, and that prod writes require allow_prod=true.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds dense, useful caveats in a logical order. Each sentence earns its place, covering side effects, verification, constraints, and safety guards without unnecessary padding.

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?

The description covers the main behavioral edge cases, prerequisites, and result statuses like 'applied' and 'partial'. It lacks explicit detail about the 'install' parameter and does not describe the full response shape, but since there is no output schema, the most important calling context is still provided.

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 a good job explaining fields, dry_run, and allow_prod, but the required 'install' parameter is never described, and post_id is only indirectly implied by 'page/post's'. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description needs to compensate more fully for all parameters.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Set a page/post's ACF field VALUES') and identifies the exact resource, while also distinguishing this from the field-group schema. It is easy to tell this tool writes ACF field values rather than reading them or editing core content.

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 explains important usage constraints such as dry_run defaults, registered-field requirements, and the prod guard, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like wp_get_acf or wp_edit_page. The intended use is implied by the name and first sentence rather than directly contrasted with sibling tools.

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