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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true). Description adds valuable workflow behavior: the size→upload URL→PUT→uploadKey sequence, the 3MB inline-file cap, and that it returns an importId for get_import_status. This is real context beyond annotations.

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?

Dense but earns its place; front-loads the purpose, then enumerates the three input modes compactly. Slightly telegraphic but no wasted sentences.

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?

No output schema, but the description names the returned importId and points to get_import_status. Covers the staged upload mechanics and constraints well; minor gaps on error handling or cleanup of stale uploads.

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 the schema already documents name, size, files, and uploadKey. Description restates the size/uploadKey linkage but adds little syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: turning a static HTML site into a NEW editable multi-page draft. Explicitly distinguishes from create_site (which builds a new site from scratch) and upload_image by scoping to full HTML-site import.

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?

Explains the multi-step workflow clearly (filePath / size→upload URL / uploadKey / files) and notes 'local server only' constraint. Does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but the staged flow gives strong context.

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