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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it can overwrite/remove content, automatically publishes to the live site, and consumes Kleap credits. These are important side effects not fully captured by the destructiveHint annotation alone. It also explains the dependency on app_id and how to resolve it.

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 concise sentences with zero redundancy. The primary trigger ('use this when...') is front-loaded, followed by essential side effects and a prerequisite. Every sentence contributes necessary information without fluff.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (per context signals) and the input schema is fully described, the description covers the key operational aspects: what it does, when to use it, side effects, prerequisites, and an alternative path. Nothing critical for an agent to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds extra value for app_id by explaining the address-to-id resolution workflow, which is crucial for correct usage. It doesn't add detail for message or context, but the schema descriptions are sufficient, so this is above baseline.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to change or update an existing website, distinguishing it from creation tools and low-level file editors. It names the resource (website), the action (modify), and the side effect (auto-publish), making the intent unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use ('when the user wants to change or update an existing website') and provides a specific alternative: if the user provides a site address, call find_app first to get the app_id. This gives clear routing guidance and prevents misuse.

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