update_website

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and not idempotent or destructive. The description adds the permission requirement, which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and there is no additional behavioral detail such as side effects or partial updates.

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 a single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. It is concise with no filler words. It could include more context, but it is efficient and appropriately sized for a simple update tool.

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?

The tool has six parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no information about the return value, error handling, or any prerequisites beyond write permission. While the schema covers parameter details, the description lacks broader context such as whether updates are partial or full replacements, which an agent needs for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It correctly implies the tool modifies fields like name, description, etc., but adds no new semantics.

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 states a clear verb 'Update' and resource 'website check' in LogicMonitor, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_website, delete_website, and get_websites. However, it could be more explicit about what fields are updatable beyond the generic term, but the verb-resource combination is specific enough.

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 a prerequisite ('requires write permission') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other update tools (e.g., update_device, update_dashboard) or when to prefer create/delete. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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