Change a site's address

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

Annotations only say destructive/openWorld/not-readOnly; the description adds several traits beyond that: the old subdomain keeps working via redirect and is reserved against takeover, quotas are limited and consumed even by a change back to an old name, signed-in visitors and password users must re-authenticate, and owner permission is required. This is exactly the extra behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then consequences, then the parameter requirement, then permissions. Every sentence carries distinct information, but the run-on sentences mixing quota and confirm semantics could be tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given a 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, the description covers redirect behavior, quota, re-authentication, confirm semantics, and authorization — nothing material an agent needs before calling 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates what the schema already says about `confirm` (repeat the current subdomain exactly, mismatches are refused) and adds only the process hint 'ask the person rather than filling it in.' Useful, but largely duplicative of the structured field 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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Moves a site to a new subdomain.' That is unambiguous and clearly distinct in subject matter from delete_site, pause_site, or update_site. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling for cases where the user wants something else (e.g., renaming a display name via update_site), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 strong when-to-use gating: 'use this only when the person named the new address,' plus prereqs ('Only an owner of the account can change an address') and a quota warning. The missing piece is an explicit alternative route ('if the person did not name an address, use X instead'), so there is no named sibling to route to.

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