update_site

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: omitted fields are left alone, the updated site is returned, and duplicate URLs are refused with the site_exists code. This is strong transparency for a mutation tool, though it doesn't mention permissions or the failure mode for a nonexistent site.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes unique information: what changes, how omissions behave, and a key rejection case.

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 low-complexity update tool, the description covers the essentials: target fields, partial update behavior, return value, and an error condition. It does not cover the nonexistent-site case or permission prerequisites, but the schema's site_id reference to list_sites provides some context. Overall it is nearly complete.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value beyond this by explaining partial-update semantics and a specific error condition tied to the url parameter. That goes above the baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change a site's url, timezone or week start.' It clearly enumerates the mutable fields, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also separates it from sibling update tools like update_goal and update_funnel by focusing on site settings.

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 implies usage: it is for updating an existing site's settings. The partial-update note ('Omitted fields are left alone') is a useful usage guideline. However, it never explicitly states when not to use this tool or points to alternatives like create_site for creating a new site, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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