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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool, yet it discloses nothing beyond the verb: not whether the change is reversible, whether it requires the site to exist or be published first, what permissions are needed, or what happens when isLive is omitted. The only behavioral hint, that isLive defaults to true, lives in the schema rather than the description.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted wording and the resource is front-loaded. The brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency, though, so it does not earn a top score.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a nested data object, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description is the only place to explain effect and side effects. It supplies none of that, leaving the agent unable to predict the outcome of the call.

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 agentId and isLive (including the 'default is true' note) are already fully documented in the structured fields. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a verb and resource ('Sets the live status of an agent website'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, 'live status' is never defined (is it a toggle, a publish equivalent, or visibility?), and siblings like website_agent_publish, website_publish, and website_set_live make the intended operation ambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when to prefer this over website_agent_publish or website_set_live, and no prerequisites or state requirements. The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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