Change Site PHP Allocation

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

With only openWorldHint: true in annotations, the description carries most behavioral disclosure. It adds that the operation applies to all environments and returns an operation_id, implying asynchrony, but it does not mention possible side effects like PHP restarts, downtime, or how to track the operation beyond the returned ID.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the key return information about operation_id.

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 the simple 3-parameter schema, no output schema, and the openWorldHint annotation, the description covers purpose, scope, and return value adequately. It could be improved by explicitly pointing to kinsta_operations_status for tracking the returned operation_id, but this is a minor gap.

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%, and the parameter descriptions already explain site_id, thread_count, and thread_memory. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('PHP worker allocation for all environments in a site'), making the operation unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling kinsta_environments_php-allocation by explicitly stating site-wide scope rather than environment scope.

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 phrase 'for all environments in a site' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative for single-environment changes or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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