update_website

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not what fields the nested `site` object mutates, not whether changes are reversible or destructive, not what permissions are required, and not what happens to unspecified settings. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a critical gap.

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 two words, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is front-loaded but only because there is nothing else to front-load.

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 mutation tool whose only parameter is a nested object with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition supplies none of the information an agent needs. It is completely inadequate for the task.

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 single parameter `site` is an untyped nested object with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no information about its shape, required members, or accepted values. With a nested object and no documentation anywhere, an agent has essentially no way to construct a valid call.

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?

"Update website" restates the tool name with no additional specificity — no indication of what aspect of the website is updated (domains, SSL, nginx config, PHP version, etc.). Sibling tools like update_settings, update_website_domain and update_nginx_conf show the domain has many distinct update surfaces, and this description does nothing to distinguish which one this covers.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. An agent cannot infer from the text whether this is the right call versus create_website, update_website_domain, or update_settings.

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