site_set_data

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that 'internal_*' keys are refused client-side, and it mentions the HTTP PUT method. Annotations already indicate it is idempotent and not destructive. The description enriches the understanding of constraints.

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 very concise with two sentences. It front-loads the core action and provides essential secondary information without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence adds value.

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 absence of output schema and only 3 parameters, the description covers the essential mutation behavior and a special case. However, it lacks documentation for the 'site' parameter and does not explain the return value or error conditions. It is minimally complete for a simple tool but leaves some gaps.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'key' and 'value' implicitly but does not define 'site' or the format/value types. The description provides only minimal parameter meaning, insufficient to fully understand all three required parameters.

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: set site.data.<key> to a value. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool site_delete_data by mentioning deletion alternative. The verb 'Set' and the resource 'site.data.<key>' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (setting a key) and mentions an alternative (site_delete_data for deletion). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other sibling tools beyond the deletion counterpart.

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