set_site_audit_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Does not consume API credits,' which is useful operational context. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, or what happens on creation vs. update, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidelines, followed by a list of key parameters. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the parameter list is somewhat dense and could be better structured for readability.

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's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key parameters but lacks details on return values, error cases, or advanced behavioral traits, which are needed for full context.

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 schema description coverage is high (89%), so the baseline is 3. The description lists required fields (e.g., 'mainSettings', 'scanSetting') and provides examples (e.g., 'scanSpeed, etc'), adding some semantic context beyond the schema, but it doesn't fully explain complex nested structures or parameter interactions.

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 ('Update or create audit project configuration') and resource ('audit project'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'get_site_audit_settings', which slightly limits differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use get_site_audit_project_default_settings to get template, then modify and save with this method.' This clearly outlines the workflow and references a specific sibling tool, offering strong contextual direction.

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