migrate_import_web_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the tool creates multiple resource types (site, FTP/shell users, databases, cron jobs) and warns that website files and DB dumps are not transferred by this operation. It does not cover idempotency or overwrite behavior, but the included side effects are meaningful.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The main action and side effects are front-loaded, and the separate-transfer caveat is placed in a clearly marked note, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, side effects, and a key operational prerequisite. It could mention result or failure behavior, but the existing content is sufficient for invoking the tool correctly in most cases.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about what the bundle produces, but it does not deepen parameter-level semantics beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 action ('Import a web domain migration bundle') plus the destination ('destination ISPConfig instance') and enumerates what it creates (site, FTP/shell users, databases, cron jobs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling migration tools like migrate_import_dns_zone and migrate_import_mail_domain.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: importing a web domain migration bundle into a destination ISPConfig instance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'web domain migration bundle' wording and the sibling set make the intended scope reasonably clear.

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