Modifier les paramètres du site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the valuable detail that all fields are optional, indicating partial updates are possible, and reveals the PATCH method. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context (partial update semantics) beyond what annotations state.

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 exceptionally concise: a single sentence plus the endpoint. It front-loads the action, then adds the relationship to getSiteSettings, and finally the HTTP method. There is no filler or repetition, and every element contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 tool with two parameters and a nested body, the description provides the essential context: it links the body fields to getSiteSettings and states they are optional, which guides the agent on what to send. The lack of return-value specification is a minor gap, but the overall guidance is adequate for correct invocation, especially given the reference to the GET tool for field details.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description reinforces that the body fields are from getSiteSettings and explicitly states 'tous facultatifs' (all optional), which is not evident from the schema alone. This adds meaningful semantic clarity about the body parameter's flexibility.

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 states the action 'Modifier les paramètres du site' (modify site settings), identifies the resource (site settings), and references the associated GET tool (getSiteSettings) to define scope. It distinguishes from siblings like updateCompanyInfo or updatePage by explicitly naming the target as site settings and including the PATCH endpoint.

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 effectively tells the agent that the body fields correspond to getSiteSettings and that all are optional, implying a fetch-then-modify workflow. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this one, but the reference to getSiteSettings provides clear contextual usage guidance beyond mere identification.

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