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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is provided structurally. The description usefully adds that enhanced 'changes what visitors see', requires an account token, and 'does not charge', but does not detail reversibility or side effects beyond the annotations' coverage.

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?

Front-loaded and free of filler; the auth prerequisite, the two levels, and the confirm gate each appear once. Parenthetical asides make it slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers impact ('changes what visitors see'), auth requirement, cost, and the confirm=false reply behavior. It leaves out only reversal/rollback specifics.

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 baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by expanding the bare enum values into real meaning (standard = cookieless/no banner/default; enhanced = banner + heatmap) and clarifying confirm=true behavior.

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 (Switches) and resource (a site's statistics level), and defines the two states (standard vs enhanced) concretely. An agent knows exactly what changes, though no sibling (e.g. site_analytics) is named to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Gives clear context for choosing enhanced (adds cookie banner + heatmap) vs standard (cookieless, no banner, default), and explains the confirm=true gate. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit 'when not to use' rule.

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