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

Annotations provide only basic flags (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds substantial behavioral context: password is hashed at rest and never returned/logged/echoed, re-running changes the value (consistent with idempotent hint), rejected requests leave the stored password unchanged, and specific error types are named. This goes beyond annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and failure behavior.

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 moderately long but every sentence carries relevant information: use case, mechanism, security properties, change behavior, plan constraints, and error handling. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. While it could be slightly more concise, the density of useful details justifies the length. Structure is logical and 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?

The tool has 3 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description covers the purpose, when to use it, prerequisites (edit access, Pro plan), behavioral guarantees (hashing, no echo), idempotency, and error outcomes. There is no obvious missing information an agent would need to correctly invoke this tool. It is complete for the given context.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (site_id, password, workspace_id) with their descriptions. The tool description does not add new meaning about parameters beyond what is in the schema, such as the fact that password is never echoed (already in schema) or the workspace_id semantics (also in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 the tool sets a view password on a site/page, distinguishing it from siblings like clear_view_password and set_visibility. It uses a specific verb ('put a password'), names the resource (page/site), and explains the effect ('Anyone with the link must enter this password before they can view the content'). This leaves 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?

The description states the primary trigger ('when the user wants to put a password on the page') and provides practical usage details: re-running with a new value changes the password, Pro plan requirement is noted, and edit-access prerequisites are explained. It does not explicitly contrast with clear_view_password or other alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to use it. The 'Pro only' and permission conditions are important usage constraints that are clearly stated.

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