wp_seo_analyze_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only analysis but never states that nothing is modified, whether authentication or SEO plugin integration is required, or whether the operation is rate-limited or expensive across a whole site.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the analyzed dimensions are listed compactly. It is appropriately sized, though it stops short of being information-dense enough for a 5.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the analysis returns and, critically, how the content to analyze is identified — the sole parameter is a site ID, not a post ID, leaving it ambiguous whether it scans a single post, a set of posts, or the whole site. That ambiguity is a real obstacle to correct invocation.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the site ID fully. The description adds nothing about how the target content is selected, which is the real semantic gap. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Analyze) and resource (WordPress post content) and enumerates the analysis dimensions (readability, keyword density, structure, technical factors). This distinguishes it from the generation-oriented siblings like wp_seo_generate_metadata, but the description never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as wp_seo_site_audit or wp_seo_generate_metadata. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the diagnostic step rather than the fix step.

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