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

Annotations declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, but the description adds critical context they cannot convey: the operation is asynchronous and must be polled via get_agent_session, shared component edits propagate to all consuming pages, and source edits may execute in the site's preview. That is exactly the kind of blast-radius disclosure a destructive async tool needs.

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 core action and blast radius, then the async/polling mechanics, then the publish separation. Nearly every sentence carries information, though the sentence about the Replo agent using normal tools and integrations is the least load-bearing.

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 async, destructive, no-output-schema tool, the description covers initiation, continuation, polling target, side effects on shared components, preview execution, and the follow-up publish step. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning to sessionId (continuation/correction path with unchanged target) and frames instructions as scoped to this operation only. It stops short of adding format guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (update) and a precisely scoped resource (the selected site's shared navigation, header, or footer within layout and shared components). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_site, update_site_metadata, and edit_site_page, which target different surfaces.

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?

Explicit routing is given on multiple axes: corrections reuse this same tool with the sessionId and unchanged target, and publishing is deferred to publish_site. A prerequisite (provisioned site) is also stated, so the agent knows when the call is even valid.

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