site_backend_update

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: internal ID resolution, that it does NOT change document root, that confirm is required, and that it is a WRITE operation. Warns about potential 404 error if backend_id is passed directly.

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 well-organized paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then provides crucial usage notes and disclaimers. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 params, mutation, internal ID resolution), the description covers essential behavioral aspects. However, it does not specify the return value or error handling, which could be useful but is not critical for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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 high (83%), but the description adds value beyond schema by clarifying that site_id is the site id (not backend id), that omitted fields keep current values, and that handler is only meaningful for type=php. This enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Update backend settings of an existing site' and lists specific configurable settings (PHP version, handler, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool site_update, which changes docroot.

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?

Provides clear guidance on using site_id from sites_list and notes that backend_id is resolved internally. Mentions confirm requirement and that omitted fields keep current values. References site_update for docroot changes, but does not give exhaustive when-not-to-use instructions for all siblings.

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