Update service worker settings

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: it reads current values and merges changes (partial update), enforces a validation rule (service_worker_file_path must be non-empty when enable_service_worker_registration is true), and requires at least one field. These traits are not covered by the idempotentHint, readOnlyHint, or destructiveHint annotations.

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 well-structured: three sentences that front-load the purpose, then detail the usage pattern, validation rule, and return value. There is no fluff or redundant repetition of schema/annotation information.

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 (4 optional parameters, output schema present, good annotations), the description is quite complete. It explains the merge behavior, validation, and return value. It doesn't mention the optional site_id override, but the schema documents that. The output schema covers return structure, so no need for description to repeat it.

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 already provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantics by explaining the partial-update pattern and the at-least-one-field rule, which are not present in the schema properties themselves, thus adding value.

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's action: 'Updates the current site's Service Worker Settings.' It lists the specific fields that can be changed (enable_service_worker_registration, enable_service_worker_in_subfolder, service_worker_file_path), which distinguishes it from the sibling read-only tool get_service_worker_settings.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: 'Pass only the fields you want to change' and 'Provide at least one field.' It also explains the merge behavior, giving clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, relying on the tool's name and sibling list for differentiation.

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