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

Goes well beyond the annotations by saying exactly what is mutated (a scrypt hash written into or removed from the site record), that no outside system is contacted, and how plan gating fails with the plan_required error. With destructiveHint=true already flagged, this tells the agent the concrete effect of the destructive path, which is the useful part.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect before constraints. The 'Inputs: slug, password, and token' clause is the only mildly redundant piece against a fully documented schema, but it is short and orients the reader.

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?

Covers mutation effect, auth source, and plan-gated failure, and annotations carry the safety profile, so an agent can call it correctly. With no output schema, it never indicates what a successful response looks like, which is the remaining gap.

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 slug, token, and password including the clear semantics. The description restates the input list and the password length/clear rule, adding little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 access setting (password) stored for a slug on deed.page, and the title clarifies it both sets and clears. The scope is precise, though it never names a sibling such as update_site to distinguish this narrow write from general site updates.

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?

Explicitly explains the input contract (8-200 chars, or empty/null to clear) and gives concrete plan constraints: setting requires Hobby or Pro and Free returns plan_required, while clearing works on every plan. It lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' routing against siblings, but the when-to-use context is solid.

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