Set a page's SEO metadata

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: 'Re-renders the page' and 'Merges over existing SEO' (rather than replacing). This clarifies that the tool modifies the system and is safe to repeat. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the key purpose and scope. The second sentence adds two important behavioral notes. No redundant information, but the second sentence could be more cohesive. Overall efficient and easy to parse.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and merge behavior. However, it omits potential side effects of re-rendering (e.g., performance impact), required permissions, and the response format. For a mutation tool, these details would improve completeness.

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 low (43%), so the description must compensate. It explains slug usage (omit/'index' for home), image path format, and ogType values. It also maps 'description' to meta description and implies ogTitle and ogDescription. However, it does not describe the 'project' parameter or provide full syntax for all fields, leaving gaps that the schema does not fill.

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 the tool sets SEO metadata for a page, distinguishing between the home page (via omitting slug or using 'index') and sub-pages. It lists specific fields (meta description, Open Graph tags, image) and mentions merge behavior, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like set_site.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for home page vs sub-page via slug. It implies usage for SEO metadata updates but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like set_site for site-wide settings. The guidance is adequate but lacks exclusion criteria.

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