Import from Archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It gives no information about side effects (e.g., overwriting existing websites), required archive format, idempotency, or what happens to related resources. This is a significant gap for a mutating import operation.

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 very concise (one short sentence) and front-loaded, but it lacks substantive content. While there is no redundant wording, the extreme brevity makes it minimally informative rather than optimally concise.

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?

This is a potentially complex tool involving importing a website from an archive, yet there is no output schema and the description fails to explain the process, expected outcomes, or any operational context. The agent has no way to anticipate the tool's behavior or return value, making the description grossly incomplete.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema documents the parameter adequately, but the description does not enhance understanding of where to find the website_uid or its format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('Agency Plan website from an archive'), which clearly distinguishes it from other tools like hosting_nodejs_build_from_archive. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from potential sibling import tools or explain what 'from an archive' entails, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., agency_website_provision, hosting_deploy_wp_import). It does not state scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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