site_update

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), destructive potential (destructiveHint=true), and idempotentHint=true. The description goes beyond by explaining the read-modify-write pattern, the unverified endpoint risk, the need for confirm:true, and the framework auto-append behavior. No contradiction 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 relatively long but well-structured with main purpose first, then details, and warnings. Every sentence adds necessary information (purpose, differentiation, behavioral notes, parameter guidance). Could be slightly tighter, but still effective.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and annotations with openWorldHint and destructiveHint. The description covers core behavior, risks, and parameter interplay. It does not describe the response on success, but for a write tool with confirm/dry_run, the guidance to check site_get afterwards compensates. Overall adequate.

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 descriptions cover 67% of parameters. The description adds meaning: explains framework as a preset that appends '/public', clarifies that index_dir and framework are mutually exclusive, and stresses that confirm is required for writes. This adds value 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 explicitly states it changes a site's document root (index_dir) and/or directory index. It distinguishes from sibling tool site_backend_update by explaining why that tool cannot achieve this. The verb 'Change' and resource 'site's document root' are clear.

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 gives concrete use cases such as frameworks serving from subfolders (Laravel/Symfony) and notes that this is the ONLY way to repoint docroot. It recommends dry_run for safety and warns about the unverified endpoint, but does not explicitly list when NOT to use it (e.g., alternative tools for other modifications).

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