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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the operation preserves 2-step carts and 1-click upsells, which is the key safety promise for a layout sync. It stops short of stating required scopes, whether a live run is reversible, or what the diff output looks like.

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 short sentences: the capability sentence leads, the concrete example follows. No filler, and the most important behavioral promise (cart/upsell preservation) is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description should say something about what 'export' and 'diff' return or how a sync reports changes. It covers the risk of breaking carts/upsells but leaves the response shape and failure behavior undocumented, which is a clear gap for a no-output-schema mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's example illustrates a valid combination (locationId + funnelId + dryRun) but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already says.

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 states specific verbs (export, diff, update) and specific resources (HighLevel funnel steps and website layouts), so an agent can tell exactly what domain it operates on. It doesn't differentiate from any sibling, but the sibling list contains no comparable site/funnel tool, so that gap is minor.

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 context is only implied: the example shows dryRun=true for a preview, which suggests the inspect-before-mutate workflow, but the description never says when to use dryRun vs a live sync or what happens if neither funnelId nor stepId is given. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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