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

Annotation Contradiction: the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description explicitly says the tool 'creates the instruction-only ZIP' and 'continues in that folder,' implying persisted filesystem side effects. This directly contradicts the read-only annotation, so the description cannot be trusted for safety reasoning.

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?

The description is a compact two-sentence definition that front-loads the primary purpose, then details the workflow branches. Every clause contributes meaningful behavioral information without padding.

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?

The description adequately covers the high-level workflow and prerequisites, but it omits return behavior, gives no parameter context, and conflicts with the read-only annotation. For a guided workflow tool with no output schema, this is a workable but incomplete definition.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters, and the description does not mention 'client' or 'language' at all. The enum values and defaults are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value and does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Start the guided Website Starter workflow.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning this as the entry-point workflow and summarizing the branching behavior that follows.

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?

'Use this first' gives explicit timing guidance, and the description explains the two branches: clone an existing project or interview the person and create a ZIP. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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