Change Webroot

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint, so the description adds one behavioral detail: the call 'Returns an operation_id,' implying an asynchronous mutation. It does not disclose cache/plugin refresh side effects or how to track the operation, but it does not contradict the 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?

One sentence with no filler; the action is in the first words and the return signal is in the second clause. Every element earns its place.

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?

Description is enough for a simple call given full schema coverage, but it omits the next step after receiving an operation_id and does not explain the optional cache/plugin refresh behavior. For a mutation with no output schema, this leaves mild ambiguity about asynchronous expectations.

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?

Input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), and the description restates the core 'webroot subfolder' concept without adding defaults, format, or side-effect semantics. The pattern for web_root_subfolder is already in the schema, so no additional burden falls on the description.

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?

States a specific action ('Change the webroot subfolder for an environment') with a clear verb and resource, matching the title. It is unambiguous among a large sibling set, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it should not be confused with.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tools are mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the action itself and the title, so an agent can infer this is for changing an environment's webroot but gets no exclusions or prerequisites.

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