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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a real side effect: setting an existing name repoints it, so an already-shared address silently opens the new page. It also explains that reader access is governed by the page's own visibility (set_visibility) and that this address becomes the canonical link in list_proposals/share cards. The delete mode (remove=true) is disclosed even though annotations only carry destructiveHint=false for the path-mapping removal, which is reversible.

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 URL semantics, then modes, then side effects, then naming constraints — no filler. Slightly dense at roughly 120 words with several parenthetical asides, but every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the main return implication (the page's link is this address). The remaining gap is the list mode — it says omitting path 'lists the current paths' but not what fields come back or whether it lists page/folder bindings — which is minor for this operation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: a concrete path example mapped to a full URL, '/' as the home page, 'omit path to list', and the 1–64 lowercase/digit/hyphen naming rule. It also clarifies the proposal_id/folder_id mutual exclusion beyond the schema's short hints.

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 ('Put any page or folder at a name on the workspace's own address') and immediately distinguishes it from the domain siblings bind_domain / set_domain_route. An agent can tell it apart from set_workspace_slug, set_visibility, and set_domain_route without opening a 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?

Gives explicit mode selection: pass proposal_id or folder_id to set, remove=true to delete, omit path to list. It also names the alternatives for the excluded case ('no domain to bind and no DNS records (that is bind_domain / set_domain_route)') and routes the sibling concern (<workspace> renaming) to set_workspace_slug.

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