Reconnect a live site

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

Annotations already declare write behavior (readOnlyHint=false), open-world effects, non-idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: it sends an email to the site owner, requires the owner to click a confirmation link, and then saves the key so updates work again. It does not detail permissions or rate limits, but it discloses the external email side effect and asynchronous confirmation flow.

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 and front-loads the usage trigger before explaining the effect. Every sentence earns its place by covering the failure scenario and the confirmation flow without redundant detail.

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?

With no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description gives an agent enough to understand the trigger, the external email action, and the confirmation outcome. It does not state what the tool returns immediately after sending the email, but the overall context is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters (path and project_id) have description text in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb (reconnect) and resource (site), and specifies the triggering condition: a live site whose publish.my key was lost locally and whose updates fail with 401/403 or "no key." It distinguishes the scenario from publishing a new site, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like check_activation.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions: the site is already live, the machine lost its key, and updates fail with 401/403 or "no key." It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the triggering scenario is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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