Update Node.js build settings

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

Despite annotations already indicating non-read-only, destructive, and idempotent behavior, the description adds valuable context: full-set replacement semantics, nulling of omitted nullable fields, creating settings when none exist, and the distinction between stored settings and API-triggered builds. This goes well beyond the annotation flags.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, the next covers the critical replace behavior, and the second paragraph explains non-build behavior and typical use cases. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: replacement, upsert behavior, required fields, the relationship to Git auto-deployment, and the explicit alternative for rebuilding. Required identifiers are in the schema, and safety traits are in annotations, so nothing critical is missing 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely useful parameter-level guidance beyond the schema: 'Send the full set: node_version is required and every nullable field you omit is stored as null.' It also calls out entry_file requirements for specific frameworks, reinforcing the schema's hint.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Replaces the build settings stored for the website,' and clarifies it creates settings when none exist. It explicitly contrasts with starting a build, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hosting_startNode_jsBuildV1.

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 specifies when to use this tool (fixing wrong app_type or missing entry_file) and explicitly names the alternative for rebuilding: 'call Start Node.js build with the same values.' It also explains that this does not start a build, so the agent knows not to use it for immediate builds.

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