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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses concrete effects: the site becomes indexed, the notice is removed, free-plan limits apply, and there is no expiry, plus the keeper is notified on WhatsApp. It also documents the auth mechanism (site key as Bearer token) and the code's 30-minute, single-use validity — rich context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 purpose and outcome are front-loaded and every sentence carries useful information. It is somewhat dense and repeats the WhatsApp number and 'agent code' details already present in the schema, which is a minor structural inefficiency rather than wasted prose.

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 complex, open-world tool that depends on an out-of-band human interaction, the description covers the trigger flow, required inputs, auth, and resulting state changes. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be 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 schema already documents site_key, pairing_code, and guardian_whatsapp thoroughly. The description restates the code and keeper-number flow ('pass it with the keeper's number') and the Bearer-token requirement, but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Confirm your preview with your keeper') and explains the outcome ('The site becomes confirmed: indexed, notice removed...'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_site and site_status, which handle creation and readback rather than committing a confirmation.

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 lays out the prerequisite flow in detail — the keeper writes 'agent code' to Emma, receives an 8-character code, and the caller must pass that code plus the keeper's number. However it never explicitly names an alternative or states when *not* to use this tool (e.g. relative to talk_to_emma), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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