site_configuration_update

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses crucial behaviors: no nginx syntax validation, risk of taking down services, side effect of flipping manual_changes, FastPanel ceasing config management, and the need to handle SSL manually. It also notes the confirm requirement for write operations.

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 thorough but verbose; every sentence adds value given the complexity and danger. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve scannability. It is front-loaded with purpose and danger.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, danger, side effects, partial update, prerequisites (site_id from sites_list), and endpoint. It is fully adequate for agent decision-making.

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?

All parameters already have schema descriptions, but the description adds significant value: it explains that omitting a parameter fetches current value from site_configuration_get, clarifies the use of confirm and dry_run, and provides guidance on obtaining current config. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 tool replaces nginx, apache, and php.ini config for a site. It distinguishes from siblings like site_backend_update (backend-only) and site_configuration_get (read-only).

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?

Explicitly warns about danger and lack of validation, recommends using dry_run for preview, mentions side effect of manual mode, and explains partial update support. It provides clear when-to-use and when-to-avoid guidance.

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