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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the expected input behavior ('pass exactly what the user asked for' rather than paraphrasing), but says nothing about whether changes apply immediately, whether they are reversible or overwrite prior content, or what the response contains for a mutating tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then immediately the usage rule, supported by four short quoted examples. No sentence is wasted and the actionable instruction lands 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?

Covers the essentials for a 3-parameter, required-only mutation tool with no output schema: what it does, what to pass, and how to phrase it. It is thin on post-call behavior and on the undocumented owner_key, which an agent would need to supply correctly.

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 67% and both documented parameters are already self-describing; the description mainly reinforces that 'change' is free-form natural language rather than a structured field. The undocumented owner_key receives no explanation in either the schema or the description.

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 verb-plus-resource ('Change a site made with make_website') and ties the resource back to the sibling that creates it, so an agent can distinguish it from make_website or ask_site without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context: this modifies an existing site and the 'change' argument should be the user's own phrasing, with four concrete example payloads. It stops short of saying when not to use it (e.g. creating a new site should go to make_website, or how to handle ambiguous requests), so it is clear but not exclusionary.

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