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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the required OAuth scope 'sites:write', which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not, however, clarify partial-update semantics or what specifically may be destructed.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the permission requirement follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 28-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description states the required ID and authorization scope. But it leaves a critical behavioral question unanswered: whether omitted fields are preserved or replaced. Annotations cover safety signals, but the description does not fill the partial-update gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 28 parameters—including id, city, name, and ownership_type—is already described in the schema. The description only reinforces that id is the lookup key. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra parameter meaning.

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 and resource: 'Update an existing site by ID.' This distinguishes it from create_site by the word 'existing' and from read tools by 'Update.' However, it does not name any sibling update tools (e.g., update_building) or otherwise spell out sibling differentiation beyond the resource name.

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 phrase 'Update an existing site by ID' implies that this tool is used to modify a site that already exists, and 'Requires sites:write scope' adds a permission precondition. It does not say when to choose this tool over bulk_update or other update siblings, nor does it give any exclusions.

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