Clone website

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: the original website is left untouched, and the tool returns the ID and URL of the new copy. It also explains the follow-up path (edit via returned ID or open URL in the interface). This goes beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, the second gives the use case, the third states the return value, and the fourth gives follow-up guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the use case, the return value, the non-destructive nature, and the follow-up path. It doesn't mention potential failure modes or prerequisites (e.g., whether the source website must exist or be accessible), but for this simplicity level it is nearly 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 the only parameter, websiteId, is described as 'The website ID' in the schema. The description doesn't add extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify that the websiteId refers to the source website to clone. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb ('Clone'), a specific resource ('a Hostinger Horizons website'), and the result ('into a new website'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like horizons_createWebsiteV1 and horizons_editWebsiteV1 by framing it as copying an existing site.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'when the user wants a copy of an existing website, for example to try out changes without touching the original.' It also gives a clear alternative: 'To edit the copy, use the `Edit website` tool with the returned website ID.' This is strong routing guidance.

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