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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the copy starts Restricted with nobody added and goes through review like any new site, plus no re-upload is required. It doesn't describe the return value, but that gap is minor.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the rationale, then the resulting state. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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 duplicate/mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers resulting state, review requirement, and the address rationale. Only the created site's return identity is unaddressed, which is minor given no output schema exists.

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 67%. The description adds meaning for the label parameter by explaining that addresses are immutable and duplication is the route to a new one, clarifying why the address field exists. The name default and siteId are left to the schema, so it doesn't fully compensate for every gap.

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: copying a site's live files into a new site. It also clarifies the distinguishing purpose (obtaining a new address) and that no re-upload happens, so it is clearly distinguishable from update/publish site 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?

Explains the key usage condition well — addresses never change, so duplicating is how you get a new one — and notes the review flow. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead' alternative, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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