agency-hosting_replaceWebsitePHPExtensionsV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavioral traits: omitted extensions are disabled, and built-in extensions are always active and unaffected. This is valuable for a mutation tool, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or response characteristics, leaving some opaqueness.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: state the core action, warn about the replacement behavior and required workflow, and clarify the unaffected built-in extensions. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description effectively covers the essential context: what the tool does, how to prepare inputs (call extensions endpoint first), and what to expect regarding disabled and built-in extensions. It could mention return values or error scenarios, but the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage: 'extensions' is described as 'Extension names, exactly as returned by the extensions endpoint' and 'website_uid' as 'Agency Plan website UID'. The description reinforces the need to send the full set but adds minimal new parameter-specific detail beyond the 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?

The description begins with a specific action: 'Replaces the set of PHP extensions enabled on an Agency Plan website with the ones provided.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hosting_updatePHPExtensionsV1, emphasizing replacement rather than incremental updates, and scopes it to Agency Plan websites.

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 explicit guidance: 'call the extensions endpoint first and send the full desired set' and warns that omitted toggleable extensions are disabled. While it does not name alternative tools explicitly, the 'replace' semantics make the usage context clear. It could have provided more explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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