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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the import runs in the background, returns immediately with status 'importing', and must be polled with get_knowledge_source. It does not say what happens to already-imported pages on re-import, which is the main unresolved risk for a re-import operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by return/polling behavior; every clause carries information. The nested parentheticals ('the source address when omitted, on the same site; another site is add_website') are dense but compact rather than padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the return shape ('the source with `status` `importing`') and the tool to confirm completion. For a 3-parameter, open-world mutation it covers the essentials, falling short only on how re-import interacts with existing imported pages and any permission or rate constraints.

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 real meaning beyond the schema: imported scope is 'its pages at and under `url`', and `url` is described as a corrected address that defaults to the source address on the same site. maxPages is left entirely to the schema, so this is not a full 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Import a website or help center source again') and scopes the operation to a re-import of an existing source, naming the sibling that handles the nearby case ('another site is add_website'). An agent can distinguish this from add_website and list_knowledge_sources without opening any 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?

It gives the selecting condition explicitly ('such as one whose import failed'), the alternative for a different case (add_website for another site), and the follow-up tool to verify the result (get_knowledge_source). The 'again' framing also implies it is not the tool for creating a new source.

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