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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully explains why: inputs are bounded and processed transiently with nothing stored. That adds real context beyond the flags, though it never says how the resulting ZIP is delivered back to the caller.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the behavioral note. No filler and nothing buried.

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 an 8-parameter generation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the definition is thin: it does not explain what the 4 enum parameters mean or what the caller receives. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the parameter surface is left entirely to the schema's type/enum constraints.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Inputs are bounded' is a faint gesture at limits but says nothing about projectName, purpose, aiTool, computer, language, or the enum choices an agent must pick.

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 ('Create a customized instruction-only Website Starter ZIP') with a qualifier that distinguishes it from the read-oriented siblings describe_starter/get_starter. It also anchors the tool in the workflow by naming start_website as the preceding step.

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 prerequisite is explicit: this runs 'after the start_website interview', which tells the agent when to call it. It does not state when-not to call it or contrast with get_starter/describe_starter, but the sequencing guidance is clear and actionable.

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