save_site

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing scoping ('only the entry's lines change in the file'), the partial-merge semantics ('fields left out are unset'), and the two refusal conditions (active crawl, config-writes flag). These details substantially reduce the risk of an incorrect destructive call, and the safety annotations already flag the mutation.

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 the action and immediate effect, then behavioral constraints, then failure conditions. No filler and no restated schema text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given a destructive tool with nested parameters, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the write's scope, merge semantics, replace requirement, and both refusal conditions.

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 100% and each parameter has a description, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: the entry object is empty in the schema, yet the description explains it is keyed by config field name, is normally derived from draft_site, and leaves omitted fields unset. It could state the field names explicitly, which is why this is not a top score.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (write a site entry to the config file and load it into the running server) and names what becomes possible afterward (crawl_site, search_docs, read_page). A reader can distinguish it from draft_site, which only drafts an entry.

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?

Explicitly says the entry normally comes from draft_site with modifications, when replace:true is required for overwrites, when it is refused (while crawling, or servers started without -allow-config-writes), and that omitted fields are unset. When-to-use, prerequisites, and failure conditions are all covered.

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