WordPress: Update product seo

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the risk profile is known. The description adds a real prerequisite ("Requires SEO API Bridge plugin"), which is valuable context the schema cannot convey. It omits the critical destructive semantics: whether passing null/omitting an optional field clears existing SEO metadata or leaves it untouched — a key question given destructiveHint=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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with the hard prerequisite. Nothing is padded. The bracketed "[UNIFIED]" token is the only element that does not earn its place.

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 13-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and only two required fields, the description is too thin. It never explains what happens to fields left null, what the response confirms, or how the SEO title interacts with the product's existing content — all things the schema and annotations cannot tell the agent.

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 13 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it says nothing about any of them. An agent gets no explanation of the distinctions between seo_title, og_title and twitter_title, the format of additional_keywords or canonical_url, or the partial-update semantics of the many nullable fields. The parameter names are somewhat self-descriptive, which is the only reason this is not a 1.

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 states a specific verb and resource: update SEO metadata for a WooCommerce product. It also distinguishes itself from the post equivalent ("Same as update_post_seo but specifically for products"), so an agent can route between the two. The unexplained "[UNIFIED]" prefix adds noise but does not obscure the purpose.

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?

There is implicit routing guidance — use this for products rather than posts — which is useful. However, it never contrasts with wordpress_get_product_seo, woocommerce_update_product, or wordpress_bulk_update_meta, and it gives no guidance on when this is preferable to updating the product record itself.

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