Update site details

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: partial update semantics, the paid-plan requirement for remove_powered_by_pushengage, and the return of updated site details. It does not contradict annotations and goes beyond the structured metadata.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action, then lists the mutable fields and key constraints. Every sentence adds useful information, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what it does, which fields are affected, partial update behavior, and return value. The site_id override parameter is only in the schema, but the schema's description covers it. Given the simple tool and rich schema/output schema, the description is nearly complete, with only minor omissions like explicit mention of site_id 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by clarifying that at least one field must be provided and by highlighting the paid-plan requirement for remove_powered_by_pushengage, which is not in the schema. It does not restate all parameter descriptions, but effectively supplements them.

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 updates the current site's details and enumerates the specific fields (site_name, site_url, timezone, enable_geolocation, remove_powered_by_pushengage). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_site_details (read-only) and update_campaign_defaults/update_service_worker_settings (different resources).

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 usage context: it updates the current site's details, supports partial updates ('Pass only the fields you want to change'), and requires at least one field. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is unambiguous given the tool name and listed fields.

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