Update SEO & AI Settings

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it clarifies partial-update semantics (unspecified fields are untouched) and pre-empts a likely agent misconception that blocking AI training crawlers also de-indexes the site. No auth/permission requirements are mentioned.

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 purpose before the two behavioral caveats. Every sentence carries non-redundant information and nothing is padded.

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 17-parameter, zero-required mutation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs (partial update, the AI-crawler/SEO non-interaction). It omits permission requirements and any hint that the crawl-policy fields interact with each other, but the schema handles the destructive map-replacement detail.

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 100% across all 17 properties, so the schema carries the full parameter burden, including the notable 'replaces the whole map' caveat on crawler_overrides. The description names no individual fields, so no meaning is added beyond the schema — the baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Change') and resource ('search & AI settings'), and the sibling get_seo_settings makes the read/write pairing inferable. However, the label 'search & AI settings' undersells the actual scope (feeds, robots.txt, author structured data, Markdown copies), so an agent can't fully predict coverage from the description alone.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or 'call get_seo_settings first' guidance. The partial-update sentence ('Only the fields you pass change') implicitly tells the agent this is the appropriate tool for incremental tweaks, but nothing routes between this and its read sibling or other config tools.

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