Update site settings

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what is obvious from the verb 'change'. It does not mention whether the operation is permanent, whether it triggers side effects (like cache invalidation), or any permission requirements. Since there are no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden but fails to provide these details.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists parameters with examples. Every word earns its place; no fluff. It is concise while being informative.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no required), the description is helpful but incomplete. It explains major parameters and gives format hints, but it does not explain return values or side effects. Since there is no output schema, the description could have described what the response contains, but it doesn't.

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 provides no descriptions for any of the 10 parameters, so the description compensates by listing most of them with format examples (timezone, language) and enum guidance (show_on_front). It adds meaning beyond raw types, but it misses date_format, time_format, and posts_per_page, which remain undocumented entirely.

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 clearly states 'Change core WordPress settings' and enumerates the specific settings it modifies (title, description, timezone, language, show_on_front, page_on_front, page_for_posts). It provides concrete examples for timezone and language formats, adding precision. It does not overlap with the sibling wp_get_settings, which is a read operation.

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?

The description implies it's for updating WordPress settings but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, the sibling wp_get_settings is clearly read-only, so the purpose of update vs. get is implied. There are no alternative update tools among siblings, so no exclusions are needed.

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