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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: findings are ranked by the goal, the previous goal is retained in history, and the call is gated behind confirmation rather than mutating immediately. This meaningfully qualifies the destructiveHint flag, though it doesn't mention required permissions or what happens if confirmation never arrives.

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?

Four short sentences with zero padding; the effect, the scope, the history behavior and the confirmation gate are each front-loaded and earn their 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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, side effects (history), return value and the confirmation workflow. Only the preconditions (verified domain, permissions) and error behavior are left implicit.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It adds the key constraint that the domain must be one of the organization's verified websites, and enumerates the kind values in prose; it does not name the 'domain' parameter or describe its format.

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: it sets a website's goal, naming the four allowed values (leads, sales, traffic, brand) and the scope ('one of the organization's verified websites'). This clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings such as webops_website_status or webops_findings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 actionable context: 'Nothing happens until the person confirms' and the call returns a code for tc_confirm, which tells the agent this is the first half of a two-step flow and not a standalone write. It does not state what to do if the domain is not verified or what the failure path looks like.

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