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

The description adds real behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation: a live site moves to the new address and the old one keeps redirecting 'for a while'. It does not say what happens after the redirect window, whether existing links break permanently, or what permissions are required, which is notable for a destructive operation.

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, front-loaded with the usage trigger followed by the key behavioral consequence. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description supplies the essential behavioral outcome (address move plus temporary redirect). It stops short of the full lifecycle of the old address or any rollback information, which a destructive tool should ideally state.

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?

The description clarifies what 'name' means (the subdomain label) and the schema reinforces that, but 'site_id' is undocumented in both places at 50% coverage. Value added over the schema is marginal rather than compensating for the gap.

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 the specific action (change the site's free address) and disambiguates the resource by explaining it is 'the name before .webtwizz.app', which separates it from connect-domain and update-site. An agent can identify the right tool without opening the schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger: 'Use this when the user wants to change their WebTwizz site's free address'. It does not contrast with alternatives such as update-site or connect-domain for custom domains, so a when-not clause is missing.

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