update_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It indicates a write operation ('Update') but does not mention any prerequisites, potential side effects, idempotency, validation behavior, or what happens if the site_id does not exist. The description offers no additional behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 a single, focused sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, contains no redundant words, and is appropriately concise for a simple update operation.

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?

The tool has a low complexity (3 flat parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), but the description only covers the basic purpose. It fails to mention that the name and URL are optional, that only site_id is required, or what happens on success/failure. Given it is a mutation tool without annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context to be fully complete.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters, giving 100% coverage. The description mentions 'name or URL' which aligns with the schema but adds no extra semantic detail beyond what is already specified. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Update') and the resource ('a site'), and specifies the exact attributes being updated ('name or URL'). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_site_schedule, which updates a different aspect.

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 implies the usage context: use this tool when you need to change a site's name or URL. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., update_site_schedule for schedule changes). The usage is clear but not elaborated.

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