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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, not destructive, open-world, non-idempotent). The description goes well beyond them: exact edge behavior, the fact that files stay on the server, per-mode semantics (list/add/remove/replace), hard limits (50 patterns; root, /* and page extensions refused), preview-vs-apply via confirm, and propagation ('live within seconds').

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 with the effect and scope, then use cases, exclusions, modes, syntax examples and constraints in a logical order. It is long, but nearly every sentence adds operational detail; the inline multi-line pattern examples are the only slightly bulky part.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a mutating, open-world tool the description supplies everything needed to call it safely: valid inputs, refused patterns, per-mode behavior, preview/apply flag, limits, and a pre-flight check with a sibling tool.

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 it does so for most parameters: mode's four values are enumerated, paths is defined as one pattern per line with worked examples, and confirm=false/true is explained precisely. However, the `site` and `server` parameters are never explained, leaving a gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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 ('Closes paths of the hosting website to the public') and immediately clarifies the exact effect (HTTP 404 at the edge while files remain on the server). It explicitly names and contrasts the sibling tools robots.txt and site_redirects, so an agent can pick it out of a very large sibling list.

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 concrete use cases (build/source folders, *.bak backups, a single private file), an explicit exclusion with alternatives ('robots.txt does not do this', 'site_redirects cannot either'), and a prerequisite warning to verify with site_read_url before blocking a folder.

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