hosting_updatePHPVersionV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the mutation action without disclosing side effects (e.g., service restart, downtime), permissions, or idempotency. More behavioral details would be beneficial for a write operation.

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 two sentences, each contributing value: action statement and usage tip. It is front-loaded but lacks a clear structure; however, it avoids waste.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and three required parameters, the description is minimal. It omits outcomes, prerequisites (e.g., website ownership), and error conditions, making it less complete for safe 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 covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds cross-tool guidance for the version parameter but does not enhance schema-provided meaning beyond that. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it changes the PHP version of a website, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hosting_getPHPDetailsV1 or hosting_updatePHPOptionsV1, which serve different purposes.

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 advises checking available versions via the Get PHP details endpoint, providing a helpful prerequisite step. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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