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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the two-phase execution model: the call never writes directly, it returns status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and a plan_token, and the write only occurs after confirm_action. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a destructiveHint=true mutation, and it is consistent with the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the precondition, then the confirmation protocol. Density is justified, though the plan_token/action_id detail could be trimmed slightly since it is repeated in the confirm_action tool.

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 destructive three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, prerequisites, conditional-site scoping and the full confirmation lifecycle. An agent can call it and know what response to expect and what to do next without further probing.

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?

With 67% schema coverage the schema already documents block, website and their accepted forms; the description adds value by spelling out the visible=true/false semantics and by tying block eligibility to content prerequisites. The remaining gap is minor since the block-identifier formats live in the schema.

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 — 'Show or hide one block of an existing site' — and immediately disambiguates with the visible flag. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like website_set_style, website_add_reviews or website_publish_status, which target different objects.

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 a concrete precondition for use: a reviews or team block with no real entries cannot be shown and those entries must be added first, which implicitly routes to website_add_reviews / website_add_team. It also states the propose→confirm pattern, though it does not explicitly name confirm_action as the follow-up tool despite that being a sibling.

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