wp_seo_set_meta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses partial updates ('Pass any subset'), silent ignoring of unsupported fields, and points to provider detection. However, it doesn't mention whether existing meta is overwritten or merged beyond the subset implication, and no return behavior is specified.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second lists all supported fields and the critical caveat. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: what fields are accepted, that partial updates are possible, and that unsupported fields are ignored. It also references the provider detection tool. Missing details like return format or auth requirements are not critical given the context.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by enumerating all accepted meta fields, adding format hints (URL, object, robots structure), and clarifying that a subset is allowed. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 verb 'Write' and resource 'SEO meta for a post', distinguishing it from the sibling getter wp_seo_get_meta. It also specifies 'via the active provider', which is a unique qualifier.

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 explicitly tells the agent to call wp_seo_detect_provider to know which features apply, and warns that unsupported fields are silently ignored. This is clear guidance on when to use this tool and which alternative to consult first.

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