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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real workflow context the annotations cannot: that this is the entry point and that it branches on an existing repo versus a live interview. It never states what the call actually returns or whether it opens a persistent session, so the added value is moderate. The phrase 'create the instruction-only ZIP' sits in latent tension with readOnlyHint=true, but read against the sibling create_starter it most plausibly describes the workflow's downstream step, not a write performed by this call.

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 then the routing rule ('Use this first: ...'). Almost every clause carries information. It is slightly cramped in the second sentence, which packs the two intake paths and the ZIP outcome into one run-on.

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 a 2-optional-param tool with no output schema and a full annotation set, a short description is defensible, and the flow context is useful. Still missing is what the agent receives back and what it should do next, and the two enum parameters are entirely unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the description mentions neither 'client' nor 'language'. The enums (chatgpt/codex/claude/other, de/en) are largely self-describing and both have defaults, which keeps this from being a 1, but the description contributes no meaning about what these parameters change.

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 names a concrete verb+resource: starting the 'guided Website Starter workflow' and producing 'the instruction-only ZIP'. That is more specific than the bare name start_website. It stops just short of 5 because it never contrasts itself with the sibling create_starter, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 instruction 'Use this first' plus the two branches ('continue an existing code repository' vs 'interview the person for a new build or migration') give clear, actionable when-to-use guidance. It lacks any explicit when-not or named-alternative routing (e.g. 'do not use if a starter already exists, use get_starter'), so it is clear but not complete.

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