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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the write is a scrypt hash stored on the site record, no outside system is contacted, and plan gating produces a specific plan_required error. It also explains that clearing removes the hash (making the site public), which is the destructive action the annotation only flags abstractly.

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?

Every sentence carries load: what changes, what the inputs are, the password constraint, the storage mechanism, and the plan gating. The core action and inputs are front-loaded, and there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the value constraints, the side effect (hash written or removed), the absence of external calls, and the plan-dependent error. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond the schema by adding the 8-to-200-character length constraint on password and restating the null-clears semantics in behavioral terms. The token parameter's optional-if-header behavior is only in the schema, so it is not fully redundant, but the description does not elaborate on it.

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: it changes the stored access setting (password) for a slug on deed.page, and clarifies the mechanism by saying it writes or removes a scrypt hash on the site record. That is far more precise than the sibling update_site, but the description never names or contrasts with update_site, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Gives concrete call conditions: setting a password requires Hobby or Pro and Free returns plan_required, while clearing is allowed on every plan. This is real when-to-use context with a documented failure mode, though it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over update_site or delete_site.

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