update_current_theme

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations. It doesn't state whether the switch is reversible, what happens to existing page content, or whether the change applies immediately. Given destructiveHint=false, the agent gets some safety signal, but the description does not enrich it.

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 a single sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly longer to cover usage, but for its brevity it scores high.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description provides a core purpose but omits any context about behavior, return values, or interaction with other features. Given the minimal annotations, a bit more guidance would be helpful, but the description is not inadequate for a basic update tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters (theme_key and theme_layout_type). The description does not elaborate on parameter meaning, but the schema provides sufficient detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('switch') and the resource ('wedding website') with a specific object ('theme template'). It distinguishes from siblings like search_themes (searching) and get_current_theme (retrieving), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like searching for themes first, nor does it mention any alternative tools. This forces the agent to infer usage from the schema and name.

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