Zapisz konfiguracje Nginx site

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

Annotations already mark the tool as mutating, but the description adds important non-obvious behavior: it overwrites the entire configuration rather than patching it, and a bad config can take the site offline. This is valuable risk context beyond what the schema or annotations state.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and the critical safety warning are front-loaded, making the description easy to parse and act on.

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 tool with only two required parameters and full schema coverage, this is complete enough: it states what is overwritten, the risk, and the recommended safe workflow. Success/error behavior is not described, but no output schema exists and this is a straightforward mutation.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with full 100% coverage, including that 'content' is the full new Nginx configuration. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Nadpisuje' — overwrites) and clearly identifies the resource: the entire Nginx site configuration. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling forge_get_nginx_config, so there is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: fetch the current configuration with forge_get_nginx_config before overwriting, and warns that a bad configuration can disable the site. It does not discuss broader alternative selection, but there is no close update sibling, so this is sufficient context.

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