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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that the tool 'Replaces the previously stored site content' and notes the fallback behavior that ORYKSA writes a business_summary if omitted. The annotations already signal idempotent and non-destructive behavior, and the description's replace semantics do not contradict them.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the key replace behavior and summary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 storage-style tool with no output schema, the description plus input schema is sufficient for correct invocation: what to pass, how contents are structured, the replace semantics, and the optional summary fallback. The only real gap is sibling differentiation, which is already captured under usage guidelines.

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 schema description coverage at 67%, the description compensates by clarifying what 'content' means ('visible text of the page (no code, no markup)') and by describing the business_summary fact sheet categories. It also adds the fallback behavior for an omitted summary. It does not add much about site_url, but the schema already describes that parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stores') and identifies the resource ('website content' and optional 'business_summary') with concrete detail: visible customer-facing text, title, url, content. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling oryksa_learn_from_url, which is a closely related alternative.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as oryksa_learn_from_url or oryksa_add_faq. The description implies a purpose ('the AI agent uses to answer customers') but gives no conditions, exclusions, or routing hints. An agent must infer when to choose this over a sibling.

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