append_site_custom_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical behavior: 'WITHOUT reading the existing content first,' which alerts the agent that this is a blind append/prepend operation. It also clarifies the additive nature, though it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or exact return values.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage context and an alternative. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides essential decision-making information: operation type, usage scenario, and an explicit alternative. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it omits potential error cases and return format.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by referencing CSS/JS/script tags as examples of 'code' and implies the 'position' parameter via 'append or prepend.' However, it doesn't add deeper semantics about the field enum or edge cases beyond what the schema already defines.

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 uses specific verbs ('Append or prepend') and names the resource ('custom code field'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools. It explicitly states 'For full rewrites, use update_site_custom_code instead,' which differentiates it from the update tool.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you need to ADD new CSS rules, JS code, or script tags — no need to read first.' It also provides a clear alternative ('For full rewrites, use update_site_custom_code instead'), giving both positive and negative guidance.

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