Update website PHP version

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds materially by stating the website restarts, requests during the switch may fail, and incompatible code will break. This gives the agent the real-world consequences beyond the boolean flags, with no contradiction.

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 sentences deliver the operation, the prerequisite, and the risky side effects with no filler. The most decision-relevant fact, 'Agency Plan website,' is front-loaded.

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?

With two simple parameters, no output schema, and annotations carrying the idempotent/destructive flags, the description covers what to do first and what to expect during and after the switch. Nothing essential to deciding whether to invoke this tool is missing.

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%, so the baseline applies: the schema already documents both website_uid and version, including the 'major.minor' format and the constraint that version must come from the available versions endpoint. The description reinforces the version constraint but does not add meaning beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Switches an Agency Plan website to a different PHP version.' This states exactly what the tool does, and 'Agency Plan' distinguishes it from the sibling hosting_updatePHPVersionV1 while the list-available-versions tools are clearly read-only precursors rather than the same 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?

It explicitly tells the agent to 'Call the available versions endpoint first to see which versions can be selected,' giving a clear prerequisite and an ordering constraint. It does not name when-not-to-use or call out alternatives such as hosting_updatePHPVersionV1, but the Agency Plan scope supplies enough context to select this tool.

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