wp_set_option

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

The description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it writes any option, potential offline consequences, storage cast tolerances, and that the result includes the actual stored value. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the critical warning, but it contains some redundancy (e.g., the dry_run default and the siteurl/home warning are repeated). It is slightly verbose, but the complexity of the tool justifies most of the detail, and the repetition reinforces safety without significant confusion.

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 all essential aspects for an agent: the action, risks, prerequisite conditions, return behavior, and safety defaults. It doesn't mention error handling, but that is not necessary for a complete understanding of how to invoke the tool. The context is rich enough to make an informed decision.

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 schema defines all five parameters, but the description adds meaningful context for dry_run (default true, writes nothing), allow_prod (required for prod writes), and value (tolerates casts). The 'install' parameter is not explicitly explained but its name and role are straightforward from the context. Overall, the description supplements the schema well, though a minor gap remains for 'install'.

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 the tool's action: 'Write ANY wp_options row.' It also identifies the resource (wp_options), the potential risk with siteurl/home, and the overall purpose. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 extensive guidance: it warns about the lack of an allowlist, advises reading the option first with wp_get_option, emphasizes the dry_run default and how to actually write, and specifies prerequisites (REST transport, wp-ops-connect version, admin app password, allow_prod for production). This leaves no doubt about when and how to safely use the tool.

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