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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful beyond-annotation context: it specifies that existing content can be overwritten or removed, that the result is auto-published to the live site, and that the call consumes Kleap usage. Auto-publish and cost are behavioral traits the annotations do not encode.

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 when-to-use clause, then behavior, cost, and the prerequisite in descending priority. Every sentence carries information, though 'change or update' and 'Needs the app_id' could be tightened slightly.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Together with the description's coverage of triggers, destructive scope, auto-publish side effect, cost, and the find_app prerequisite, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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. The description goes further on the key parameter, explaining how to obtain app_id via find_app when only a site address is known — genuine semantic value beyond 'The app ID to modify'.

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/update/modify) and resource (existing website), and 'existing' implicitly separates it from create_app and rename_app. The meaning is unambiguous without opening the 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 says when to use it ('when the user wants to change or update an existing website') and gives a concrete prerequisite routing rule — call find_app first if the user only gave a site address. It does not clarify its relationship to adjacent file-level siblings like edit_files/write_files, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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