update_site_custom_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that updates are partial ('Only sends fields you specify — others remain unchanged'), that CSS is 'auto-wrapped in <style>', and that HTML/script insertion points are specific. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior, but it adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence, critical usage warning, and a bulleted list of parameters. It is slightly verbose but every sentence carries important information, and the front-loaded warning ensures safety is emphasized first.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how it behaves (partial update), prerequisites, per-parameter specifics, and safety requirements. It does not describe return values or error cases, but these are less critical for an update tool with optional parameters and no output schema.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the meaning of each parameter (e.g., 'code_before_head: HTML/script inserted before </head>') and clarifying the update semantics ('only sends fields you specify'). This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions like 'Custom CSS for the site'.

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 'Update custom code (CSS/JS) for the entire site' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_site_custom_code and append_site_custom_code by emphasizing 'Only sends fields you specify — others remain unchanged', making it clear this is a partial update rather than a read or append operation.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: MUST read existing code with get_site_custom_code first, show the user what will change, and get explicit confirmation. Also states 'NEVER update without user approval', giving a strong when-to-use directive and a clear prerequisite. This is more than typical and effectively distinguishes the required workflow.

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