pressable_set_site_usage_limits

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to existing limits. This is a mutation tool, and critical behavioral context is missing.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded and clear. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is a mutation operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is far too brief to cover return values, side effects, or usage nuances. It leaves major gaps for the agent to infer.

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 50%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters like 'id' and 'type'. It only hints at 'filesystem or database' (aligned with type) but says nothing about id, limit semantics, or warning_headroom. It adds minimal value over the schema.

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 action ('set') and the resource ('filesystem or database usage limits for a site'), which is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling read tool get_site_usage. No ambiguity or tautology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related read tools like get_site_usage. It is a bare factual statement with no contextual direction.

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