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

Annotations mark it as a non-readonly, destructive, open-world operation, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: it is asynchronous with a polling contract, shared-component edits propagate to all pages using them, source edits may run in the preview, and authorization requires a provisioned site. No contradiction with destructiveHint=true or readOnlyHint=false.

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 purpose, then prerequisites, async behavior, and alternatives in a logical order. Slightly long; the sentence about the Replo agent using its normal tools and integrations is closer to filler than the other high-value sentences.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the async lifecycle (poll get_agent_session), the mutation scope, prerequisites, correction handling, and the publish step. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and follow up correctly 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 schema documents all three params (including the sessionId omit-to-start/continue semantics), meaning baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying the correction workflow (reuse sessionId with unchanged target) and that instructions cover only the current operation, adding meaning beyond the field descriptions.

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 and resource (update the site's shared navigation/header/footer in its layout and shared components), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like publish_site and update_site. An agent can identify the scope (shared components affecting all pages) 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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite (requires a provisioned site), the follow-up route (poll get_agent_session), the corrections path (call again with the same sessionId and unchanged target), and the alternative for going live (use publish_site separately). When/when-not coverage is thorough.

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