Update Site Config

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

Annotations already declare this a write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false); the description adds that it toggles boolean tracking features and targets an existing site. It does not disclose side effects such as when changes take effect or that enabling session replay increases data volume, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the operation and target resource, the second summarizes the parameter set with concrete examples. Every word earns its place and the structure is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimal: it omits what the call returns on success and what happens on failure (e.g., unknown siteId). However, annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema documents every parameter, so the core call is adequately specified with a clear gap around response behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds only light semantic grouping by framing most boolean properties as 'tracking features' with representative examples. It does not add value semantics beyond the schema, and 'public' (stats visibility) does not strictly fit the 'tracking feature' framing.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('configuration for an existing Rybbit site'), making the operation unambiguous and naturally distinct from the read counterpart rybbit_get_config and from site creation/deletion. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate them, but the verb plus the 'existing site' qualifier is clear enough to place it.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives — it never points to rybbit_get_config for reading current state, nor notes that funnels and goals have their own update tools. The only implicit signal is 'existing', which hints the site must already exist, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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