Update PHP Extensions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'Enable/disable PHP extensions' without disclosing whether the operation is additive, replaces the existing extension set, persists across restarts, or triggers service reloads. It also omits side effects and required permissions, making it insufficient for autonomous invocation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant text. It is concise and well-structured, though perhaps too terse for the tool's complexity. For its length, it earns its place and receives a score of 4.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover edge cases, return values, and preconditions. It does not explain whether the 'extensions' map represents a complete set or partial updates, what response the API returns, or any requirements such as domain existence or account permissions. The three parameters with nested objects warrant a richer description, so a score of 2 is given.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (domain, username, extensions). The description adds the general operation context ('Enable/disable') but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Enable/disable PHP extensions' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like hosting_php_reset_extensions (which resets to defaults) and hosting_php_update_version (version changes). However, it is terse and does not mention that it operates per domain/username, leaving some ambiguity about the scope of the operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools hosting_php_update_options and hosting_php_reset_extensions are not referenced, and there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or examples. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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