aggiorna_seo_prodotto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load and does so: it discloses that existing values are overwritten, that the effect is public (SERP), that site cache is invalidated, and that the plugin keeps baseline and previous versions restorable in the SEO tab. It also returns before/after values and shifts responsibility for similarity scores to the user.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the overwrite warning, then the pre-call workflow. It is dense and the parenthetical asides make it slightly long, but nearly every sentence carries operational value.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers safety, reversibility, cache side effects, return values (before/after) and the compliance workflow. Only the identification/validation semantics of the parameters, notably prodotto_id, are missing.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains `origine` well (competitor site, with an example) and indirectly identifies the three text fields, but says nothing about `prodotto_id` or any format constraints on the text fields, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource set (writes/overwrites SEO title, meta description, focus keyword of a product) and differentiates from siblings by naming ripristina_seo_prodotti for restoring and controlla_somiglianza for pre-checks. An agent can distinguish it from leggi_seo_prodotto or aggiorna_seo_categoria immediately.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional workflow: if the texts derive from a competitor analysis, first run controlla_somiglianza, show score and passages, explain the 0-9 scale, let the user choose, apply only after their choice. Also says when to fill `origine` and how to undo via ripristina_seo_prodotti.

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