hosting_importWordpressWebsite

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

The description reveals some behavioral traits (automatic extraction, time delays, username resolution) but omits critical details such as whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or requires specific permissions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and falls short.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the main action and includes multiple useful details. It is reasonably concise, though could be structured with bullet points for clarity. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main workflow and inputs but lacks details on return values, error handling, and post-extraction behavior. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value beyond schema by specifying naming conventions for archives (e.g., directoryname_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS.zip) and automatic username resolution from domain. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 the action 'Import a WordPress website from an archive file to a hosting server' with specific verb and resource, and the input schema details further differentiate it from sibling tools like hosting_createWebsiteV1 or hosting_deployStaticWebsite.

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 provides context on when to use (e.g., for importing a complete WordPress site from an archive) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like hosting_deployWordpressPlugin. It implies usage through the process description but lacks explicit guidance.

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