acedatacloud_update_site

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates mutation via 'Patch' and claims things are 'safe,' but does not disclose effects, authentication expectations, reversibility, required confirmation, or that secrets are redacted.

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 extremely concise, with a single short sentence front-loading the operation and scope. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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?

This is a 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and only a one-line description. Even though the schema is well documented, the description does not provide adequate context around confirmation, safety, or selection among the many site-related sibling tools.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented in the input schema. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Patch') and a clear resource ('site-admin configuration fields'), which communicates an update operation on site configuration settings. It is modestly distinguishable from sibling site tools like get_site or update_site_banner, though 'safe' is somewhat vague.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related site tools, nor does it describe exclusions such as unsupported fields or required confirmation behavior. The only implied context is that it is for site-admin configuration patching.

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