Update PHP extensions

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, idempotent, and destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful precaution of checking current states before changing, but it does not disclose further behavioral details such as whether changes apply immediately, are reversible, or affect other website functionality. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite guidance is positioned immediately after it. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 4-parameter mutation with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description gives the essential context: what it changes, what the tool acts on, and a recommended pre-check step. The absence of an output schema means return behavior is not described, but this is a minor gap for this tool's complexity.

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%, and the schema already explains enable and disable as 'PHP extensions to enable' and 'PHP extensions to disable'. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning such as accepted extension name formats, interaction between enable and disable, or whether both can be sent together. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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's action ('Enables or disables PHP extensions') and target resource ('for the website'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from related tools like hosting_updatePHPOptionsV1 or hosting_updatePHPVersionV1. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 second sentence gives a concrete precondition: use the Get PHP details endpoint to check current extension states before modifying them. This provides clear situational guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as hosting_resetPHPExtensionsV1, so it misses the 'exclusions/alternatives' bar for a 5.

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