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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds meaningful context: this edits settings only (content goes elsewhere), and that enabling previewFromPage exposes the entry page's title/description to anyone holding the link. The exposure caveat is genuinely beyond both annotations and schema.

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 front-loaded sentences, no filler, with the scope constraint placed after the capability list where it belongs.

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 an idempotent, non-destructive settings mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the definition covers scope, sibling routing and the notable visibility side effect. It leaves entryPath semantics unexplained, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Coverage is 50%: cspMode, notifyEmail and previewFromPage are documented in the schema, while name, siteId and entryPath are not. The description enumerates the editable fields but mostly restates what the schema descriptions already say, adding only the CDN-over-https phrasing, so it only partially compensates for the gaps.

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 precise action and resource (rename a site, change entry page, toggle alerts, allow external resources, configure previews) that maps directly to the schema fields. An agent can tell this apart from content-authoring siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes content edits to neuron_sites_publish, which is a real alternative and a useful exclusion. It does not, however, clarify when to use this versus other site-management siblings like set_access or duplicate, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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