update_content_type

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that name/kind are immutable, that omitted fields are dropped from the schema, that existing content is not migrated, and that removed fields' stored values stop being shown/delivered, plus the instance-wide scope. This is exactly the "what gets destroyed / what changes" context the annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) cannot convey, and it clarifies rather than contradicts them.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers the workflow warning, behavioral consequences, and scope. Every clause carries distinct, load-bearing information with no filler despite the em-dash-heavy density.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers everything needed to call it correctly: the full-replacement semantics, immutable fields, the consequence for existing content, and the multisite scope. Nothing material is missing.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (baseline 3). The description still adds real meaning: name/kind immutability for the name param and the full-definition requirement for the definition param, which the schema only hints at.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Replace a content type's definition") and enumerates the concrete operations (add/remove/rename fields, change options). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read tool get_content_type via the "get_content_type, edit, send back" workflow reference, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives strong procedural guidance for the correct usage path (get_content_type → edit → send back) and states the critical constraint that the FULL definition must be sent. It stops short of explicitly naming when-not or alternatives (e.g., "use create_content_type for new types"), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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