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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining the side effect: 'The old URL stops serving the site and its name becomes available.' This goes beyond annotations. There is no contradiction between description and annotations.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: main action, side effect, prerequisite. No redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with the core operation.

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 the simple input schema (3 parameters, no enums, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description effectively covers the mutation's behavior and side effects. It could slightly improve by noting if the operation is reversible or if the renamed site retains its content, but current info is sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description partially adds meaning for new_name ('first label of the new URL') and org_name ('Omit to use the organization the account joined first'), but these closely mirror the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('rename', 'move') and explicitly names the resource (website) and the new URL derivation. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_site' and 'publish_site' by describing a distinct renaming operation.

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 explains when to use this tool (to rename and move a site) and notes a prerequisite (requires connecting a Valet account). It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives such as 'publish_site' or 'set_site_access', but the context is clear.

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