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

Goes well beyond the annotations by enumerating exactly what is copied (content, title, description, portal, crawlPolicy) and what is not (domain, published state), plus the resulting state ('becomes active'). This is the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs before mutating state.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the copy scope and the not-copied caveats are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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, annotations already cover the safety profile and the description covers copy semantics thoroughly. The remaining gap is the absence of any note on the all-optional schema, where duplication realistically requires the source id.

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 documents id/name/title/description. The description adds only that title and description function as overrides and lists copied fields, but does not explain the 'name' slug parameter or that id is practically required despite the schema marking nothing as required.

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 (copy) and resource (site), plus the precise scope: source must be a site you're a member of, destination is a new site you own. This clearly distinguishes it from create_site and pull_template among siblings.

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?

Provides concrete pre-conditions ('a site you're a member of' into 'a new site you own') that tell the agent when this tool applies, but never names alternatives (create_site, pull_template) or exclusion conditions.

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