update_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields change') and by warning that head_js injects raw HTML into <head>, which is a security-relevant detail. It omits permissions/auth requirements, reversibility, and any side effects of maintenance_mode or recaptcha changes.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by the update semantics and the two most nuanced parameters. Every sentence contributes, though the final sentence is somewhat param-specific and could be marginally tighter.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only the partial-update behavior and two parameters. Permission requirements and the effects of enabling maintenance_mode or gdpr_popup are left unexplained, so the coverage is adequate but incomplete.

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 62%, so the schema already documents several parameters. The description meaningfully supplements global_css (schema has no description) by stating it applies to every page, and reinforces head_js usage, but says nothing about the other eleven parameters, including the nested gdpr_config object.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource, 'Update site-wide settings', which is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools that also mutate site-level configuration, notably set_favicon and set_logo, leaving the boundary between them to inference.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus set_favicon, set_logo, or update_booking_setup. The phrase 'Only provided fields change' hints at partial-update behavior but is not framed as usage direction, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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