glue_website

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable behavioral context: that the tool automatically scrapes metadata and fetches the favicon if the website doesn't exist yet, which is a significant side effect beyond just saving. It does not mention any destructive actions, which is fine because there are none implied. It could clarify whether the operation is idempotent, but the automatic scraping disclosure is strong.

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 long and efficiently conveys the core action and a key behavioral detail. It is front-loaded with the action and then adds context about automatic scraping. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured to separate purpose and behavior, but it is concise and readable.

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 action and an important behavior (auto-scraping). However, it does not describe any return value or how success/failure is indicated, and it doesn't handle edge cases like invalid URLs or user permissions. Given the simplicity, the missing output info is a minor gap, but the description could be more complete by mentioning potential errors or what happens on failure.

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 mentions the website and Glubler referencing the parameters but adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the 'title' parameter's override behavior, but the schema already states 'Optional custom title override'. Thus, the description adds minimal extra 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?

The description clearly states the action ('glue/save'), the target resource ('a single website'), and the destination ('to a specific Glubler'). It also distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'glue_websites_batch' by explicitly saying 'single website'. It is action-oriented and unambiguous.

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 explains the intended use case (saving a single website to a Glubler) but does not explicitly state when to use the batch sibling instead. However, the singular focus is clear and the benefit of automatic metadata scraping is mentioned, which helps the agent decide to use this tool for single-URL scenarios. Missing explicit exclusions but acceptable for this clarity level.

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