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

Annotations only confirm the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'update', such as whether omitted fields are preserved, side effects of setting owner details, or draft-policy finalization. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though it is arguably too terse to fully support the tool's complexity.

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 tool with six parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no behavioral annotations that clarify update semantics, a one-sentence description is incomplete. Important context like owner finalizing draft policies is buried in the parameter schema rather than surfaced in the tool description.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the tool description contributes no parameter information. The schema already documents all six parameters, including the owner per-language array semantics and business_details.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') on a specific resource ('existing iubenda site'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_site, delete_site, and get_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 word 'existing' implies this tool is for sites already created, not for new site creation, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when/when-not guidance. This is implied usage rather than explicit routing.

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