setup_website

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds real semantics beyond that: replacement of supplied host/type sets, preservation of an omitted address family, and the conflict-resolution requirement for www records. It does not restate the annotation hints, which is correct.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the behavioral caveats. Efficient, though the sentence fragments are slightly telegraphic.

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 no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. What is missing is parameter-level meaning and any explicit routing to apply_plan, which matters for a 5-parameter planning tool.

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 0% and none of the five parameters (ttl, www, ipv4, ipv6, domain) are documented in the schema. The description only gestures at the www/ipv4/ipv6 family semantics; ttl, domain, and the type of the domain field are left entirely unexplained, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: preview apex A/AAAA and optional www CNAME records. That is enough to tell it apart from sibling tools like create_dns_record or ensure_dns_records. It stops short of naming the natural companion (apply_plan), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

"Preview" implies this is a non-committing step before an apply, and the note about conflicting www records needing explicit resolution hints at prerequisites. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. Usage is only implied.

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