WordPress: Wp reading settings set

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

The annotations already flag a destructive, non-idempotent write, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: a permissions prerequisite (manage_options), a plugin-version gate (Bridge v2.16.0+), and a genuine caveat that blog_public=false is a non-binding hint rather than real access control. It stops short of saying whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, which is the main behavioral unknown for a partial-update tool.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the field list, then the conditional constraint and caveats — no filler. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is non-informative noise, but it costs almost nothing.

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 partial-update settings mutation with no output schema, the definition covers prerequisites, cross-field validation, and the most surprising side effect (blog_public). The remaining gap is the semantics of a partial update — whether omitted fields are left untouched — which matters for an agent deciding how much to send.

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% across seven parameters, so the description has to carry the load, and it names all six settable fields explicitly. It adds real semantics for two of them — the page_on_front/show_on_front dependency and the meaning of blog_public — though it supplies no ranges or units for posts_per_page and posts_per_rss.

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?

"Update Settings → Reading values" names a specific verb and a specific settings group, and the field list makes the scope unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling wordpress_specialist_wp_reading_settings_get or from adjacent settings setters such as wp_permalinks_set, leaving the agent to infer that this is the write-side counterpart.

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?

It gives a real invocation rule ("Pass any subset", plus the requirement that page_on_front be a published Page id when show_on_front=='page'), which is more than most setters offer. But it never states when to reach for this tool versus the reading_settings_get sibling or the generic wordpress_get_settings, nor does it warn about overriding existing values.

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