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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the return artifact (an editor link into the WeInc chat box) and the critical safety behavior that nothing is actually sent until the user presses send. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs, and it is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by return behavior and required instruction content. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters, no output schema, and no nesting, the description covers purpose, return value, and the confirmation behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by adding content guidance the schema lacks: the instruction should say what to change, where, and the exact new text. This meaningfully shapes how the agent fills the field.

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-plus-resource: 'Prepare a change to one of the person's own websites.' This clearly separates it from creation/list siblings. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling update_project, so it stops short of a 5.

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 ('one of the person's own websites') but never states when to reach for this tool instead of update_project or start_website, nor any prerequisites such as needing a projectId from my_websites. No when-not and no named alternative.

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