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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by saying that keeping a preview confirms ownership or permission and that this is recorded. However, with destructiveHint=true declared, it does not explain what happens to the preview, whether the action is irreversible, or what side effects occur beyond the ownership record.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the main action before qualifying behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and ownership confirmation but omits what the tool returns on success, whether the preview remains available, and the concrete impact implied by destructiveHint=true. It is adequate but leaves notable behavioral gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that omitting subdomain yields free name suggestions, but it adds little meaning beyond the schema's own parameter 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?

The description states a specific action: keeping a preview as a site and choosing the web address name. It references create_preview via the preview concept, so the agent can distinguish it from preview creation, but it does not explicitly contrast with publish or site_status.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Keep a preview as a site of your own' and the schema note that draft_id comes from create_preview. It does not state when to choose this over publish or other site-management siblings, nor does it give exclusions.

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