edit_siteAsk sitectrl's AI editor to change an existing site ('add a contact page', 'make the hero darker'). Edits land in the site's draft; the first build of a brand-new site goes straight live. Returns what changed plus the draft URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| instruction | Yes | The change to make, in plain language. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds meaningful context: edits go to draft, first build of a new site goes live, and it returns what changed plus the draft URL. This is beyond annotation value and sets correct expectations without contradiction.
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 well-structured sentences, front-loaded with purpose and examples. It includes the draft/live nuance and return info without any wasted words, making it efficient and readable.
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?
It explains the draft/live behavior and the return value, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. The only minor gap is the implicit definition of 'slug', but overall an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.
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 only documents 'instruction' (50% coverage); description provides examples for instruction but does not explicitly explain 'slug' or its format. The description implies slug identifies the site, but it's not stated. The examples add some value, but the slug semantics remain under-specified.
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 action ('change an existing site') with concrete examples, and the resource (site) is unambiguous. It implicitly differentiates from create_site and publish_site by focusing on existing sites and the draft/live distinction.
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 explicitly says 'change an existing site', signaling when to use this tool over creating a new site. It does not name sibling tools directly, but the draft/live behavior provides contextual clarity. Slightly lacking explicit 'when not to use' exclusions, but the target use case is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a distinct action/resource, with create, edit, file access, publishing, status, analytics, domains, and account clearly separated. The only possible ambiguity is edit_site vs write_site_files, since both modify a draft, but the descriptions clarify AI edit vs direct file push.
Most tools follow a predictable verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_site, list_sites, publish_site), which makes the set easy to navigate. Minor deviations: whoami doesn't follow the pattern, and get_analytics omits the site qualifier.
Twelve tools is a well-scoped size for a hosted website builder; the set covers creation, editing, file management, publishing, build status, analytics, domains, and account access. Each tool earns its place without bloating the surface.
The surface covers the core lifecycle well: create, draft/file read/write, publish, status, listing/details, analytics, and account. Missing delete/unpublish and a tool for reading form submissions are gaps, but they are minor relative to the covered workflows.