update_website

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it only states 'update' which is already evident from the tool name. It does not explain effects on monitored status, field replacement semantics, or any side effects.

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 a single, short sentence with no filler or redundant text, making it highly concise and easy to parse. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting useful context, so it is not maximally effective.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse to be complete. It fails to mention required parameters, optional fields, return values, or any operational context needed to use the tool correctly.

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?

The description provides no information about the 8 parameters. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the property names in the schema, leaving parameter semantics entirely unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool updates a website, using the specific verb 'update' and the resource 'website'. It distinguishes from create/get/delete siblings, though the adjective 'monitored' adds a minor qualification that is not fully explained.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_website or delete_website. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions under which this update should be invoked.

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