aggiorna_seo_categoria

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the mutation path (real wp-admin category edit UI, not direct DB) and a side effect (site cache invalidation). It does not state overwrite semantics for existing SEO fields, required permissions, or what happens on an invalid term_id, which keeps it below 5.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the rationale and the cache side effect. Three sentences with little waste, though the mechanism explanation is slightly repetitive.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, rationale and one side effect. Missing pieces are the term_id sourcing and confirmation/return behavior after the write, so it is near-complete but not airtight.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains what titolo_seo and meta_description hold (SEO title and meta description), but term_id — the most error-prone parameter — is never explained (which category identifier, how to obtain it, WordPress term semantics). Partial compensation only.

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: writes the SEO title and meta description of a product category. It also contrasts itself with the product counterpart ("a differenza dei prodotti"), which lets an agent separate it from aggiorna_seo_prodotto without opening either schema.

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 gives a clear usage rationale: for categories, direct DB writes are not re-read by Yoast, so this UI-based path is "l'unico modo affidabile". The implicit exclusion (do not use this for products, use the product tool) is present but the sibling is never named, so no explicit alternative routing.

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