Update Site Config

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive update behavior. The description adds that it toggles tracking features, but does not disclose merge vs replace semantics, error handling, or prerequisites beyond site existence. It provides minimal additional context beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and example features. No filler, but could be slightly more precise by noting that non-tracking fields are also updatable. Generally efficient and well-structured.

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 20 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the general purpose and highlights common toggles but omits update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replace) and behavior on missing optional fields. Still functional for basic selection but not fully comprehensive.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all 20 parameters. The description mentions a subset (tracking features) but does not add new meaning or clarify interaction between parameters, such as whether updating one field resets others. At baseline 3 due to full 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?

The description clearly specifies the verb 'update' and the resource 'existing Rybbit site', and lists example features like IP tracking and session replay. It differentiates from sibling tools like create, delete, and get by focusing on updating existing configs.

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 use for updating an existing site's configuration but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like rybbit_get_config for reading or rybbit_create_site for new sites. No exclusions or when-not guidance provided.

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