update_website_customization

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: a bug workaround when changing header_font_family_id, field restrictions (body_font_family_id limited to [68, 198]), and fields that cause errors if passed (header_color, nav_font_color). This adds significant value beyond the annotations which only set destructiveHint: false.

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 concise with four sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides necessary information without waste. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage, constraints, and a bug workaround.

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 complexity of 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects, constraints, and usage hints. It is mostly complete, though it could mention what the response looks like or any side effects beyond the bug workaround.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by clarifying the color format (6-char hex without #), explaining which fields are not writable via mobile-api, and noting restrictions on body_font_family_id. The schema has 63% coverage, and the description compensates well for the remaining parameters.

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 website colors and fonts, and specifies that only changed fields should be provided. This differentiates it from other update tools and is specific about the resource being modified.

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 guidance on when to use this tool (for updating colors and fonts) and notes that certain fields (header_color, nav_font_color) are not writable via this API and should be changed in the Zola web UI. It also advises calling get_website_customizations for font family IDs. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools.

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