Read or change site settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that changes affect the whole site and advises caution, which is important context. However, it does not mention whether changes are reversible, require authentication, or what the return format looks like when reading settings. This leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the core functionality (read or change settings) followed by a necessary caution. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary operations, the scope of impact, and a safety caution. It lacks an explicit statement about return values when reading, but the context implies current settings are returned. This is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage for both parameters, providing descriptions for 'site' and 'updates'. The description adds minimal parameter-level detail, merely referencing 'updates' and 'site' indirectly. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool can 'Read general site settings, or change them by passing `updates`.' It uses specific verbs (read/change) and a clear resource (general site settings), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle content, users, media, etc.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to read or change site settings. It also includes a caution about affecting the whole site and confirming changes beyond a dev sandbox. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is acceptable given the tool's unique purpose.

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