update_site_env

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: it's a full replacement (not a diff), the write is asynchronous, and immediate read-back may fail. No contradictions with 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?

Three efficient sentences: action, prerequisite, post-condition. No redundant words. Perfectly front-loaded with key operation details.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, action, and post-behavior. It doesn't specify return value format, but the async warning is valuable. Adequate for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'complete file' requirement for 'content' and clarifies the context of server_id and site_id, adding value beyond 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 the action ('Replace'), the specific resource (site's .env file), and the mode ('full-file PATCH — send the complete file, not a diff'). This distinguishes it from other tools like get_site_env.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Read it first with get_site_env.' and 'allow a few seconds before reading it back (an immediate get_site_env may 404 or show stale content).' This tells when to use, prerequisite, and post-use advice.

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