site_backend_update

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context: the tool resolves the backend id internally and uses PUT /api/sites/backend/{backend_id}, and omitted fields keep current values by fetching via site_get. No contradictions 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 a single paragraph that front-loads purpose and includes all necessary information. It is dense but clear; slight improvement could be breaking into bullet points for readability, but it remains concise with no wasted words.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description explains internal resolution, merge semantics, confirm requirement, and docroot separation. It does not describe the return value, but given no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall quite 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?

Schema coverage is 83%. The description adds key context beyond schema: all settings except site_id are optional, omitted fields keep current values, and passing site_id avoids 404. However, not every parameter is individually elaborated beyond 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 the specific settings (PHP version, handler, app file, port, socket path, env vars). It distinguishes from sibling tool site_update by explicitly noting that this tool does not change the document root, which site_update does.

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 instructs the agent to pass the SITE id from sites_list, warns against using backend_id directly (404 error), explains that omitted fields keep current values, and directs to site_update for docroot changes. It also flags that confirm:true is required for write operations.

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