hosting_importWordpressWebsite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes that the process may take a while for larger sites, that files are extracted after upload, and the site becomes available in minutes. It also states username is auto-resolved. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise: three sentences covering purpose, input types, and important notes. No extraneous information. Front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 complexity (multi-step import) and lack of output schema, the description covers input, process, timing, and automatic resolution. It does not specify return values or error scenarios, but for a tool with 3 params, it is fairly 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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description reinforces the auto-extraction and naming pattern for directories but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'Import' and resource 'WordPress website from an archive file'. It specifies uploading an archive and database dump to deploy a complete WordPress site. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hosting_createWebsiteV1 or hosting_deployWordpressPlugin.

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 indicates usage for importing a WordPress website from an archive. It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools cover creation, deployments, and specific actions, so context is clear.

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