update_current_theme

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'switch' – notably it never warns that existing website customizations may be lost, which is the most important consequence for a destructive theme change.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is efficient. It is arguably too terse for a destructive mutation, but that gap is scored under other dimensions rather than counted against conciseness.

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 mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basic action but omits consequence and sequencing context: what the switch overwrites and that theme_key should come from search_themes. Adequate but with clear gaps given the destructive flag.

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%: theme_key is documented with examples and provenance (search_themes) and theme_layout_type documents its enum and MULTI_PAGE default. The description adds nothing beyond that, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Switch the wedding website to a different theme template'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_current_theme and search_themes. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is not told that search_themes is the intended source of theme_key, nor whether switching replaces a theme it must first inspect with get_current_theme.

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