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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never says whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, whether the operation requires authentication or ownership of the site, what happens when access=password without a password, or what the tool returns.

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?

A single compact clause with zero filler; every listed item corresponds to an actual setting. The structure is a bare field list, though, with no leading verb or scope statement to anchor it.

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?

A 10-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs substantially more: required slug, merge vs replace behavior, access/password coupling, and effect of archiving. Only the field inventory is supplied.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It maps a few names to concepts (название→title, архив→status, robots и sitemap→likely noindex/seoFiles), but leaves slug, password, noindex, and seoFiles semantics implicit and explains neither enum meaning nor field dependencies.

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 enumerates the settings covered (title, access, archive, SEO fields, robots/sitemap, SPA) which makes the resource recognizable as site configuration. However, there is no verb: it never states whether the tool reads settings, writes them, or applies a partial patch, and siblings like vebhost_get and vebhost_update leave that ambiguity unresolved.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as vebhost_update or vebhost_get. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the settings-mutation entry point.

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