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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does add valuable behavior by warning that the old host is deleted when the address changed, which is a real side effect. However it omits whether verification is asynchronous, what happens on failure, and whether the operation is idempotent or requires elevated permissions.

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 with no padding, front-loaded with the action and followed by prerequisite and side effect. Efficient, though the parameter relationship could have been stated in the same space.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the account prerequisite and the deletion side effect but leaves the only input parameter unexplained and the verification outcome format unspecified. Adequate but with a clear gap around inputs and results.

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 single required parameter 'slug' has 0% schema coverage and is never mentioned in the description, which instead talks about 'the current site address', leaving it unclear whether the address is derived from the slug or must be supplied. With one undocumented parameter the description should compensate but does not.

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 specific verb+resource pair: adds the current site address to Yandex.Webmaster and triggers a rights check. It is distinguishable from vebhost_webmaster_delete by stating that the old host is removed when the address changes, though it never explicitly routes to that sibling.

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 a prerequisite (a Yandex account from the dashboard) which implies the context of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for deleting or re-verifying a host.

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