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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=true; the description adds the consequences the annotations cannot convey — visitor-visible paused state, retention of files/versions/subdomain, and a reversible counterpart. The 'without deleting anything' framing sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=true (the tool does take a live site offline), though it is technically about data retention rather than disruption, so it is clarification rather than contradiction.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core effect and followed by the retention guarantee and the inverse-tool pointer. No filler, and the closing clause buys routing value.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers effect, retention, and the reversing tool. Minor gaps remain (immediacy of the pause, any auth/permission prerequisites, effect on already-published content), but nothing essential for correct invocation 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% and the single parameter 'site' already documents 'Subdomain or site id, from list_sites.' The description says nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema fully carries the load, but it adds no incremental meaning.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (pause a site) and immediately defines the scope of the effect: site goes offline, nothing is deleted, files/versions/subdomain remain. It also distinguishes itself from delete_site (implicitly) and resume_site (explicitly), so an agent can separate it from its closest siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Provides clear routing context by naming the inverse operation ('resume_site puts it back') and clarifying the non-deletion semantics versus delete_site. It does not state an explicit when-to-use trigger or prerequisites (e.g., permission requirements, whether the site must be published first), but the selection context is unambiguous.

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