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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: the email link, acceptance required, full asset transfer (pages, history, statistics, custom domains), plan impact, and that nothing changes until acceptance. It also clarifies the default of keep_me_as_editor (lose access). This richly augments the destructiveHint annotation without 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?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It includes necessary behavioral details but is slightly verbose with the example clause. Still, each sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear.

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 destructive, async transfer tool, the description covers all essential aspects: trigger (email link), condition (acceptance), what transfers, plan implications, and default editor access. No output schema exists, so no return-value explanation needed. It is complete for an agent to call 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% (site is undocumented). The description doesn't elaborate on the 'site' parameter beyond its role in the transfer, but it does add context to keep_me_as_editor (agency scenario, default). While it doesn't fully compensate for the missing site description, it provides process-level semantics that partially inform usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate schema coverage and minimal direct parameter detail.

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 'Hand a site over to someone else' with a specific resource (site) and purpose (client handover). It distinguishes from siblings like add_editor by focusing on ownership transfer, and the context of email acceptance makes it unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: when you want to give a site to a client, and it mentions asking about keep_me_as_editor as an agency practice. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the guidance is practical and sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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