Start a website

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the state precondition ('stopped') and the outcome ('back online'), but says nothing about idempotency behavior (starting an already-running site) or failure/reversal conditions.

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?

A single short sentence with the state precondition and resulting outcome front-loaded; no filler whatsoever.

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 low-complexity two-parameter lifecycle toggle with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is essentially sufficient. Only minor gaps remain around re-starting a running site and the absence of an explicit pointer to site_stop.

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% for both required params (id, name), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no format or usage detail about the domain-name or id arguments, matching the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: bringing a stopped site back online. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling site_stop and distinct from site_create/site_delete, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the precondition 'stopped site' — an agent can infer it applies to a halted site, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of what happens if the site is already running, and no named alternative.

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