WordPress: Update post seo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write with destructive potential. The description contributes genuinely new behavior — plugin auto-detection and the SEO API Bridge dependency — but never explains what "destructive" means here (e.g., whether omitting a field or passing null clears existing SEO values), which is exactly the disclosure a destructive, non-idempotent update needs.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler, leading with the action and following with plugin support and the hard dependency. The brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it edges into under-specification for a 14-parameter tool.

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 destructive, non-idempotent update with 14 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the definition is thin on the details an agent needs to call it safely. The plugin prerequisite and auto-detection note are valuable, but field-level semantics and the effect of nulls remain uncovered.

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 14 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and it says nothing about any specific field: no explanation of seo_title vs og_title vs twitter_title, canonical_url, robots, or how null defaults behave. Only the broad category ("SEO metadata") is conveyed, leaving the majority of parameter meaning to be inferred from names alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update SEO metadata for a WordPress post or page") and adds real scope detail: it handles both Rank Math and Yoast fields and auto-detects the active plugin. That distinguishes it from wordpress_get_post_seo (read) and wordpress_update_product_seo (product scope), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Implies usage context (SEO metadata on a post/page, either SEO plugin) and gives a concrete prerequisite: "Requires SEO API Bridge plugin." It does not say when to prefer this over the product-level or generic update tools, nor what to do if the prerequisite is unmet.

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