wp_seo_site_audit

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the audit scope without mentioning caching (though the 'force' parameter hints at it), performance impact, resource usage, or output format. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a potentially heavyweight operation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and purpose. It avoids extraneous details, making it easy to read and process.

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?

While the description covers the core purpose, it lacks information about output, execution time, prerequisites, or multi-site considerations. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context for an agent to use the tool effectively. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 performs a comprehensive SEO audit of a WordPress site, covering technical, content, and performance analysis. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like wp_seo_analyze_content or wp_seo_keyword_research, which focus on more specific sub-tasks.

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 implies use for overall SEO auditing but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, nor does it mention when not to use it. The tool name and description offer context, but no exclusionary or alternative usage advice is given.

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