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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false, openWorld=true; the description adds consequence detail beyond them: changes go 'live immediately', creation is also overwrite, and no SFTP/SSH is required. It does not state whether overwrites are versioned/recoverable (site_versions/site_restore exist) or what permissions it needs.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the primary write behavior and followed by the important negative guidance. The image/token warning is verbose but earns its place by preventing a costly misuse; nothing else is padded.

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, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains thin is the multi-site parameter semantics and the interaction with sibling file tools (site_edit_file, site_versions), which an agent still has to infer.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not: 'path' and 'content' are only implied, and 'site' and 'server' (both defaulted to empty strings) are never explained, leaving multi-site/server targeting ambiguous. The single example path in the site_fetch advice is the only parameter-adjacent detail.

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 (writes), resource (TEXT file on the user's hosting website), enumerated content types (HTML/CSS/JS/JSON/SVG), and the create-or-overwrite behavior. It distinguishes itself from site_fetch for binary assets. It does not, however, differentiate from the close sibling site_edit_file, which an agent must also choose between.

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 an explicit when-not rule ('do NOT write images/binaries here') with the alternative named and even the exact call shape (site_fetch(url, 'assets/img/x.webp')). The rationale (token/context exhaustion) is supplied. The gap is that no guidance distinguishes it from site_edit_file or site_deploy/upload paths.

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