site_update

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the immutability of site.code and the flat attribute structure. However, it does not mention potential side effects, auth requirements, or return format, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior and constraint. It connects to sibling tools and provides context for when to use alternatives. Minor omission: no mention of return value or idempotency details, but overall complete enough.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that attributes are flat root-level fields and that site.code is immutable, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not document the site parameter (likely identifier) or list all possible attribute names, leaving partial ambiguity.

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 tool updates the site singleton, specifies it operates on flat root-level fields, and distinguishes itself from site_set_data by noting that per-key data uses a different tool. This provides a specific verb and resource with clear sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly mentions the alternative tool site_set_data for per-key data, and notes that site.code is immutable (raising an error if passed). This provides clear when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternative guidance.

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