hosting_importWordPressWebsiteV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description does a good job disclosing the destructive nature: 'WARNING: this overwrites the website's existing contents and cannot be undone'. It also notes the prerequisite of uploaded files. It could add more detail about what exactly gets overwritten (e.g., all files vs. specific directories) but it covers the critical risk.

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, delivers the critical warning upfront, and explains the endpoint's purpose in three short paragraphs/sentences. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of annotations, the description covers essential behavioral risks and prerequisites. It doesn't describe return values, but there is no output schema and for an import operation the main concern is successful completion vs. failure. Could mention potential errors (e.g., invalid file formats) but overall it's adequate for the complexity.

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 description relates to the parameters by mentioning 'archive and database files' which maps to archive_path and sql_path. It doesn't add extra syntax or format details beyond the schema, but it provides enough context to understand the parameter roles. Baseline 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 explicitly states 'Import WordPress website to the specified domain' and clarifies it works from archive and database files. This distinguishes it from other sibling tools like agency-hosting_importWebsiteFromArchiveV1 by being WordPress-specific and clearly scoped to a domain.

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 clearly states the operation overwrites existing contents and is irreversible, implying caution. It also specifies the prerequisite that files must be uploaded to the website directory. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar import tools or state when not to use it.

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