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

The description discloses the key behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: omitting site_id clears the root and makes it return 404 again, while all other paths continue resolving folder and site slugs. Annotations mark the operation idempotent and non-destructive, and the description aligns with those hints, adding concrete outcome context rather than contradicting them.

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 tight sentences carry the entire behavioral model: what the tool does, how to clear, and what is unaffected. The most important action is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple, idempotent write with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the action, the clearing behavior, and the scope of effect. The one contextual parameter (workspace_id) is already fully described in the input schema, so nothing necessary 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for site_id by stating that omission clears the root and resets it to 404. It also clarifies domain_id is about a workspace-bound domain; workspace_id is already well documented in 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 phrase, 'Choose or clear the ROOT site of a workspace-bound domain,' and pins down the exact resource as the site served at the domain's bare / (e.g. share.acme.com/). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling slug/domain operations like set_site_slug or add_custom_domain without needing to open schemas.

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 clearly states the operation's context: setting or clearing the root site of a workspace domain, and explains how to clear by omitting site_id. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the domain-root use case is distinct enough that the context is unambiguous.

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