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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses what is preserved (content, versions, forms, goals, numbers), the collision outcome ('nothing moves and the answer says so'), the 301 redirect with redirectFrom naming, and the expectedBrandId guard returning brand_mismatch. These are exactly the side effects an agent cannot infer from destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

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 trigger, then behavior, then a sibling disambiguation — a logical order. It is on the long side, and the parenthetical keyword list '(ホームページ, Webサイト, ランディングページ)' is mild padding, but nearly 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still characterizes the response (workspace identity in brand.id/name/host, brand_mismatch) and covers collision, redirect, and preservation behavior. For a 3-parameter mutation tool, nothing needed to call it 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: path character rules, the fact that '/' means the site's top page, and the redirect/brand-mismatch consequences of the parameters. It stops short of describing every edge case (e.g. max length of 200) but adds enough to beat the baseline.

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 — 'Changes one page's path on the workspace's site' — and immediately illustrates with a concrete example (/cafe-guide to /guides/cafe). It also explicitly separates itself from set_site_url, so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling without opening either 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?

Opens with an explicit trigger condition ('when the user wants a page at a different path') plus multilingual example utterances, and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ('set_site_url puts a page at a full URL on a domain that isn't connected yet'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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