LightCMS

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

While annotations indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, the description fails to explain what 'destructive' means in this context (e.g., whether it replaces all existing title templates) or clarify that partial updates are supported since both parameters are optional. It mentions placeholder syntax but omits behavioral implications of the operation.

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?

Two sentences total. The first sentence ('Update site configuration') is redundant with the tool title and name. The second sentence contains the specific placeholder information. Reasonably brief but front-loaded with less valuable information.

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 presence of annotations (destructive/idempotent hints) and complete schema coverage, the description barely suffices for a two-parameter tool. However, it fails to explain the partial update behavior (optional parameters), the specific scope limitation (title templates only), or elaborate on the destructive implications hinted in annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters including the placeholder syntax. The description generically states that title templates support placeholders, which adds minimal value beyond the schema but does not contradict it. Baseline score appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 the tool updates 'site configuration' which is somewhat tautological with the tool name, but adds specificity by mentioning title templates and their placeholders. However, it misleadingly implies broad configuration updates when the schema only contains title template parameters, failing to precisely scope the tool's limited functionality.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_site_config, nor does it mention prerequisites such as understanding current configuration before updating. No explicit warnings about the destructive nature despite the annotation hint.

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