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

Annotations already declare a non-readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, and the description's 'provide ONLY the fields that change' plus 'ALWAYS set BOTH light and dark variants' add genuine partial-update and domain context that the annotations don't carry. It is silent, though, on the fields that are whole-value replacements (customTailwindConfig, customRobotsTxt, advanced.* code, the font arrays) and on the Studio flagging of raw-code changes — the schema carries that burden instead. No contradiction with the non-destructive hint.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, and the enumeration does function as an index for a very large 12-parameter schema. But it is a single ~90-word run-on whose itemisation duplicates schema keys, and the placement of the image-vibe workflow after the list buries it. Adequately sized, weakly structured.

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 broad mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, partial-update intent and the site-wide vs per-page split. It omits what happens after the change (whether a publish/deploy step is required), any permission or plan caveats, and any undo/reversibility note. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 92% across 12 nested params, so the schema already does nearly all parameter explanation (replace semantics, id formats, token rules). The description only restates the parameter groupings and their parenthetical key names, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 site settings') and then enumerates the exact surfaces it governs (SEO, fonts, deploy, favicon, analytics, globalTheme, performance, advanced code), so an agent knows this is the site-configuration catch-all. It also draws the key in-tool boundary between site-wide (`general`/`seo`) and per-page (`page`). It never distinguishes itself from the sibling `swebsy_update_page`, so an agent must infer that boundary itself.

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?

Gives real invocation directives: 'Provide ONLY the fields that change' and 'use `page` to change ONE page', plus a specific situation for the tool ('match the theme to a reference IMAGE's vibe'). However it names no sibling alternative (e.g. `swebsy_update_page` for page content, `swebsy_rename_site` for renames), so when-to-use-this-tool-vs-another is left to inference.

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