Modify a site

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the operation may notify recipients or change tenant data, and it explicitly requires confirm:true and operator write opt-in. This complements the destructiveHint=true annotation by specifying the concrete side effects, and it does not contradict any 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?

The description is information-dense but each part serves a purpose: the trailing-slash clarification, the field list, the reference link, and the side-effect warning. It is front-loaded with the core action and maintains a logical structure without excessive verbosity.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the required confirm flag, the write opt-in requirement, and potential side effects. It also points to a reference for full details. It does not describe the response format, but since it's a write operation without an output schema, this is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for body, query, and confirm, achieving 100% coverage. The description goes further by listing the expected body fields (id, name, country, etc.), which helps the agent construct the payload even though the schema only requires id and allows additional properties. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 'Modify a site' and provides the HTTP method and path, making the verb and resource explicit. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_a_site or delete_a_site, but the name and verb are unambiguous, so the purpose is clear.

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 gives usage constraints (requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true) and warns of side effects, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_a_site or delete_a_site. There is no explicit 'use for existing sites only' or 'use this instead of X' guidance, leaving the selection to inference.

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