wp_update_site_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation requires manage_options, signals a publish-tier change, and explains why (affects every visitor), adding meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention return values or rollback options, but the global impact warning is a strong extra.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by a capability requirement and a caution about impact. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 13 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and caution but misses key behavioral details: whether the update is partial (only provided fields) or full replacement, what happens if no parameters are passed, and what the response looks like. These gaps make it less than fully complete.

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% parameter descriptions, so the description's listed examples (title, tagline, URL, language, timezone, default category, posts_per_page) provide partial compensation. However, it uses 'etc.' and leaves many parameters (email, date_format, start_of_week, etc.) unexplained. The property names are self-explanatory, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('site-wide settings'), clearly distinguishing it from post-level or taxonomy tools. It lists concrete examples like title, tagline, URL, language, timezone, default category, and posts_per_page, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by stating the required capability (manage_options) and emphasizing the publish-tier impact on all visitors. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the site-wide scope inherently differentiates it from sibling tools like wp_posts_update or wp_cpt_update. It lacks explicit exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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