swebsy_update_settings

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

No annotations are present, so the text must carry behavioral disclosure. The description and schema do this well: customTailwindConfig and fonts REPLACE prior values, `page: null` clears overrides, brandColors auto-generates both light/dark ramps, and darkThemeTokens must use var() references. Missing only minor operational details like auth, error, or return behavior keeps it from 5.

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?

Despite covering a large surface, the description is a set of front-loaded, dense sentences: capabilities, partial-update rule, site-wide/page routing, and image-matching behavior. No filler or marketing language; every sentence carries operational content.

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 deeply nested 6-parameter tool, the definition is highly complete: schema property docs cover field formats, constraints, and pitfalls, while the description supplies the cross-cutting rules. The only real gap is the absence of any return/error/output contract, which matters somewhat since no output schema exists.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage semantics: only send changed fields, site-wide vs per-page routing, and always set both light and dark theme variants when matching an image. These go beyond what the schema alone provides.

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?

States a specific action ('Update site settings') and enumerates the affected resource categories: SEO, site URL, JSON-LD, per-page overrides, theme tokens, fonts, dark mode, and custom CSS. It immediately draws the site-wide vs per-page distinction, which is the key ambiguity in this tool. No sibling tool overlaps this scope.

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?

Explicitly instructs partial updates ('Provide ONLY the fields that change') and gives the routing rule: `general`/`seo` are site-wide, `page` is for one page. Schema descriptions reinforce this with 'Use this whenever you mean one page' and 'NEVER use it to build a repeated custom component'. This is near-explicit when/when-not guidance even though no sibling alternative tool is named.

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