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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description earns credit by explaining exactly what that means in practice: unknown keys are refused with nothing written, null/[] clears a value, unlisted working-hour days become closed, and options not named in `updates` retain current values (partial-update semantics). That is real added context beyond the annotation flags.

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 behavioral constraint before the long allowed-key enumeration, and the bulleted split between top-level keys and options is easy to scan. The key list is long but each entry is load-bearing since there is no schema documentation to fall back on.

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 destructive partial-update tool with no output schema, the definition covers mutation semantics, clearing, omission behavior and nested value formats thoroughly. The only omission is how the target website is resolved when both or neither of `website_id`/`website_uuid` 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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description carries the full load, and it does: `updates` is defined as a key->value map with null-clears semantics, the permitted top-level keys are enumerated, and the nested shapes for `faqs` and `working_hours` are spelled out. The gap is `website_id` vs `website_uuid` — the schema marks neither required, yet the description never says at least one is needed or which takes precedence.

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 (update allowed keys of a seliee_website) plus the identifying parameters, and immediately bounds the scope with 'every other key is refused and nothing is written'. That scoping sentence distinguishes it from the broader `edit_website` sibling without needing the schema opened.

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?

It clearly establishes the context: use this for key-level writes to a website, with `get_website_variables` named as the authority for which option keys exist. However, it never explicitly excludes `edit_website` or the parallel `update_page_keys`/`update_article_keys` tools, so the agent must infer sibling routing.

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