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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: shared component edits may leak to other pages, the call is asynchronous and must be polled, source edits may run in preview, and the backing agent uses connected integrations. It stops short of describing failure modes or how long the async operation typically takes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by operational caveats in descending priority. It is somewhat dense at six sentences, and the sentence about the Replo agent's tools is the least essential, though it does frame the instructions parameter.

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 explains the async contract and the polling path, plus the prerequisite and the publish boundary. An agent has everything needed to invoke it and handle the result without guessing.

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, and the description adds genuine meaning on top: sessionId is framed as a continue-versus-start switch tied to the same target, and instructions is characterized as a request handed to an internal agent (with a caution against secrets and conversation history).

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?

States a specific verb (edit), resource (the selected site's draft page), and scope (one route, covering copy, sections, product display, forms, page-local components). It is clearly distinguishable from create_site_page, delete_site_page, update_site_navigation, and publish_site, the latter of which it explicitly routes away to.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: requires a provisioned site, omit sessionId to start, supply sessionId with unchanged target for corrections, and use publish_site separately to make changes public. It also names the follow-up tool (get_agent_session) for polling.

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