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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the whole site is overwritten, that the address stays the same, and that a risk check runs as in publishing — but says nothing about reversibility, whether the previous version is retained for vebhost_rollback, or what happens if the risk check fails.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. Each sentence contributes a distinct fact, though the phrasing is terse enough to leave gaps.

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 destructive, whole-site replacement with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the action and the address stability but omits failure behavior, recoverability, and any parameter guidance. It is minimally sufficient, not complete.

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% for both required parameters. 'Адрес не меняется' only hints that slug identifies the target site; the meaning and format of slug and the expected content of html are left entirely to inference.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Заменить весь сайт новым HTML' (replace the entire site with new HTML). The word 'весь' (entire) implicitly separates it from per-file tools like vebhost_write_file, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives context ('Адрес не меняется', risk checks same as publishing) but never says when to choose this over vebhost_publish, vebhost_apply, or vebhost_write_file, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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