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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the update always fully replaces the site, that html_content converts a multi-file site into a single-file site, that the address does not change, and that content type can be switched between HTML and PDF.

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 compact and every sentence adds information: the update scope, the replacement behavior, the address stability, the content-type switching, and the PIN-only case. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundant boilerplate.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description together with the schema fully covers what an agent needs to call it correctly: valid page identification, content constraints, replacement semantics, and the PIN-only variant. Nothing essential 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?

Even though the schema already documents all 5 parameters, the description adds crucial cross-parameter semantics: at most one of html_content, pdf_base64, or files may be provided, passing only pin changes protection, and html_content has a transformative effect on multi-file sites. This goes well beyond the individual field descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource: updates an already published site by its identifier. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'previously published' and by explaining that the address stays the same, making it distinct from publish, delete, and get.

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 description clearly states the use case: updating an existing published site and optionally changing only the PIN. It implies the boundary against publish by saying 'previously published site,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool.

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