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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the two application modes but does not say whether applying templates replaces or merges with a website's existing templates — the single most important behavioral fact for a destructive operation.

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 tight sentences with the target resource stated first and the either/or parameter choice second. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the input contract but not the outcome: nothing about what is overwritten, whether the call is additive, or what the caller gets back. Adequate to attempt the call, thin for predicting its effect.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: it explains that website_id and website_uuid are alternative identifiers, that seliee_template_id/seliee_template_uuid are an alternative pair, and that seliee_websites_templates is an explicit map. It stops short of describing the expected structure/keys of that map, which leaves the least self-explanatory parameter underspecified.

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 and resource ('Apply templates to a website') and even cites the backing route, so the operation is concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as create_publish_website_template, create_template, or create_wp_template, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

The description implies usage by presenting two mutually exclusive modes (copy a stored seliee_template vs. pass an explicit map), which is genuinely useful routing information. But it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance against sibling template tools and no prerequisites or permissions context.

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