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

Annotations only assert destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true without saying what is destroyed; the description fills that gap by naming which fields can be cleared, forbidding empty partner names, and warning that unpublishing hides the site from guests 'including those with an existing link'. It also discloses the auth requirement and that results carry previous values alongside saved settings.

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 tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose first, then mutation/merge semantics, then return shape, then access requirements. No filler and the most decision-relevant content (publish/unpublish, clearing) is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what results contain, and it covers auth and destructive side effects for a 10-parameter mutation. The one gap is that it reports a site address in results without noting that changing that address belongs to the sibling set_my_site_address tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds non-obvious merge semantics ('Omitted fields remain unchanged') and the replace-vs-clear distinction that the schema only implies field by field. It stops short of clarifying the wedding_id resolution case for accounts with multiple weddings, which stays in the schema only.

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 ('Updates supplied wedding settings') and adds a distinguishing capability ('can publish or unpublish the guest site') that no sibling update_* tool offers. An agent can separate this wedding-level mutation from update_my_guest, update_my_event and update_my_accommodation without opening a schema.

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?

Preconditions are implicitly supplied ('Requires sign-in and an Aisle membership') and the field rules imply when each parameter matters, but the description never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as set_my_site_address or set_my_property_room_selection, whose concerns overlap with publishing and room mode. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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