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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with the key behavioral facts an agent needs: changes apply 'right away, without a build' and 'replace the old values of the columns given.' It is silent on permissions or failure modes (e.g., unknown column names), which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, no filler: the trigger comes first, the behavioral consequence second, and the sibling hand-off last. Every clause carries information.

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 an output schema, annotations, and 75% parameter coverage, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: immediacy and replace semantics. Slightly incomplete on permissions and how unlisted columns behave, but adequate for correct invocation.

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 75% and the schema itself documents the meaningful parameters, including provenance hints ('A table name from list-site-data', 'The row_id from get-site-data'). The description adds only the partial-update nuance ('columns given'), which is a slight value-add, so the 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 ('change') applied to a concrete resource ('a record in one of their WebTwizz site's database tables') and gives examples ('a product's price or a booking's time'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like add-site-data and delete-site-data.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants to change a record...') and names the excluded case with its own alternative: 'Use edit-site instead for new tables or columns, or for content kept in the site's files.' The routing decision is fully specified.

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