Update PHP Options

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does without disclosing key behavioral traits such as whether the update merges with existing options or replaces them entirely, whether there are restrictions on which ini settings are mutable, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and the object. It is concise without being terse to the point of confusion, and every word adds value.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out critical information about behavior, such as whether the options parameter represents a full replacement or a partial update, and what happens to existing settings. The schema covers param types but not operational semantics, so the tool is under-specified for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for username, domain, and options. The description adds a minor clarification by equating options to 'ini settings', but this mostly aligns with what the schema already says. The baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't complicate or conflict with 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('PHP options (ini settings)'), making the action unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hosting_php_update_version and hosting_php_update_extensions by focusing on 'options' rather than version or extensions, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., having a hosting account/domain), or contrast with related PHP tools like hosting_php_details or hosting_php_update_extensions. The agent is left without contextual guidance.

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