Stop 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 usefully confirms the site is retained rather than removed, but says nothing about whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the site is already stopped (relevant given idempotentHint=false), or what is returned.

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 eight-word sentence with zero filler, and the key constraint is front-loaded. It is arguably terse for a state-changing tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter state toggle with annotations covering safety, this is minimally adequate. It omits reversibility (site_start), what happens on repeat invocation, and any response behavior, which leaves modest gaps for a mutation 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 coverage is 100% with both 'id' and 'name' fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or syntax meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('take a site offline') and adds a scoping clause ('without deleting it') that distinguishes it from site_delete. It does not explicitly name site_start as the inverse, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative site_start for bringing the site back up. The 'without deleting it' clause only implicitly signals usage.

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