combell_linux_hostings_set_php_memory_limit

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

Annotations already declare the operation is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description is consistent with them. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the unit ('in MB') and target scope, so it earns only a neutral score rather than credit for extra context.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the action and target, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for such a simple setter.

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 two-parameter setter with an idempotent annotation and no output schema, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient to invoke correctly. It might be strengthened by naming domain_name explicitly as the hosting identifier, but that is easily inferable from the operation.

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 documents memory_limit with unit and example, and the description reinforces 'in MB'; domain_name has no schema description, and the description only indirectly identifies it as a Linux hosting. Since schema coverage is only 50%, the description must compensate somewhat, and it does minimally but not fully; the parameter names themselves are fairly clear.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set'), a clear resource ('PHP memory limit'), and a scope ('Linux hosting'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools such as set_php_version, set_php_apcu, or set_gzip, so an agent can identify when it applies.

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 implies the intended use—changing the PHP memory limit for a Linux hosting—but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tools. The tool name and scope make the situation inferable, but the agent is left to connect it to siblings.

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