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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), it discloses that changes apply asynchronously in the background over minutes, consume AI credits, nothing is published, the build_in_progress error contract, and that a no-build outcome surfaces a question in 'reply'. This is rich behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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 constraints, then a well-organized Args block. It is on the longer side and the attachments paragraph is dense, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information; only marginal trimming is possible.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description instead covers the async lifecycle, error codes, credit cost, and attachment prerequisites. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: project_id defined, prompt defined with a concrete example, and attachments fully specified (up to 10 public URLs, 80 MB each, refer by filename, never pass file contents, local-file upload workflow). It compensates completely for the missing schema 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 (change/edit) and resource (existing AI-built Grigora website) and immediately scopes it to 'AI-builder websites', distinguishing it from siblings like update_page or create_website. An agent knows exactly what this does and what it operates on.

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 says it works only on AI-builder websites, that only one build runs per site, that it should be routed through get_website_build_status, that related changes should be combined, and it names get_attachment_upload_url as the prerequisite path for local files. This is close to a full when/when-not/alternative guide.

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