cpanel_import_check_remote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'check' and gives no detail about whether this is read-only, what credentials are validated, what connectivity is tested, or what side effects (if any) may occur. This is too thin for a credential-handling operation.

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 very short, front-loaded, and free of filler. The first sentence states the purpose and the Args line adds a minimal parameter hint. However, the brevity is closer to under-specification than to deliberate conciseness.

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 tool that takes credentials and a host, with no annotations and a schema that documents nothing about the payload, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the check verifies, what inputs are required, what failure responses look like, or how this step relates to the import process.

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 input schema provides 0% coverage: payload is an opaque object with additionalProperties true. The description adds only 'Host / credentials body', which hints at content but does not specify required keys, expected structure, or credential format, leaving the agent unable to confidently construct a valid payload.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource as a remote cPanel server, with the temporal context 'before import'. This conveys the core purpose and roughly distinguishes it from the actual import flow, though it does not describe what specifically is checked.

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 phrase 'before import' gives clear contextual timing for use, but the description does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It also does not relate itself to the nearby sibling cpanel_import_tasks, so the agent must infer routing.

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