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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them by spelling out exactly what is destroyed: faqs replace the whole list, working_hours replace the entire weekly schedule with unlisted days becoming closed, while options are merged so untouched keys persist. That is precisely the 'what gets overwritten vs preserved' information an agent needs before a destructive write.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences with no filler; the identity/patch rule comes first, then each structured field gets one sentence. The reference to 'helper/mcp/website_options.py' is the only wasted token, since the agent has no way to resolve that path.

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 an 11-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers identity, patch semantics, and all three nested structures. The remaining gap is the zero-required-params case: it never says what happens if neither website_id nor website_uuid is supplied, nor how conflicts between the two are resolved.

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 0% across 11 params, so the description must carry the load, and it does for the hard cases: the identifier pair, the {"summary","text"} FAQ shape, the {"day","opens","closes"} / is_24h working-hours shape, and merge behavior for options. It leaves the scalar fields (title, slogan, subtitle, description, keywords, language) undocumented, though their names are largely self-explanatory, and it points options at an external file the agent cannot read.

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 ('Edit basic fields of an existing seliee_website') plus the two lookup keys, so the agent knows exactly what object is mutated. The word 'basic' implicitly separates it from update_website_keys and edit_page, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 'only non-null fields are updated' line tells the agent how to call it (send a sparse patch), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over update_website_keys, edit_page, or create_publish_website_rules, and no prerequisites are given.

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