updateSiteSettings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses partial-patch behavior, the need to read before patching, and credential requirements. It does not describe response/error behavior or reversibility, which would make it fully transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action, then states granularity, prerequisite, and credentials in short sentences. Every sentence adds distinct value, and heavier parameter detail is appropriately left to the schema.

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?

Between the description and schema, an agent knows the action, partial-patch model, prerequisites, the sensitive site-section exception, and both parameters. The lack of an output schema leaves return-value details unspecified, but that is a minor gap for invoking the tool correctly.

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 data parameter is richly explained in the schema with an example, partial-modification semantics, and a caveat about redirecting site changes to setSiteTimeZone. siteId is not described, but its name and type make its purpose obvious, so the 50% schema coverage is adequately compensated.

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 'Patch site settings,' giving a specific verb and resource, and immediately clarifies partial-update semantics. It is clearly distinct from nearby siblings like getSiteSettings and setSiteTimeZone, whose purposes are explicitly contrasted in the description and schema.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to read current values with getSiteSettings first, names setSiteTimeZone as the alternative for site/region/scenario changes, and states required credentials. This gives concrete when-to-use and when-to-avoid guidance.

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