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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description stays consistent with that by framing the call as preparation that returns a link rather than a project-creating mutation. It usefully adds that the output is a Panderr link where the user continues, and that creation/editing occur later — context not available from the annotations 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the return value and a scope boundary. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present and fully documented parameters, the description need only cover purpose, return shape and scope — all of which it does. The remaining gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance against start_zip_import for non-website sources.

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% and the 'mode' enum carries a full explanation of preserve/improve/redesign, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about websiteUrl format, URL validation, or how mode interacts with the migration outcome, so it sits at the schema-covered 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Prepare an existing public website for migration into Panderr') and implicitly contrasts with the sibling start_zip_import by scoping to a public website address. It stops short of naming the sibling, so the differentiation requires a small inference.

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 rather than stated: 'existing public website' suggests this is the path for URL-based sources rather than archive uploads, and 'Project creation and editing happen later' bounds when this tool's job ends. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to start_zip_import as the alternative.

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