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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation is known. The description adds useful context by explaining that the description field feeds AI relevance scoring and should be accurate, which is beyond the annotations. It does not elaborate on reversibility or side effects, but the annotated destructive hint covers the core safety signal.

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?

Two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and a consequential caveat right after. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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?

The tool is simple, the schema is complete, an output schema exists, and annotations carry the destructive hint. The description adequately covers what is updated and why the description matters. It could mention that existing values are overwritten, but 'New display name' and 'New description' in the schema already convey that.

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 the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds value by explicitly connecting the 'description' parameter to AI relevance scoring and naming 'display name' and 'description' as the updatable fields, reinforcing their semantics beyond 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Update a monitored website's display name or description') and identifies the resource and specific updatable fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_website, delete_website, get_website, and analyze_website without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Description implies the use case: when you need to modify a monitored website's display name or description. It provides the context that the description affects AI relevance scoring, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full routing guide.

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