submit_site_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'submit' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens after submission (e.g., triggers a process, sends notifications), whether it's reversible, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that an output schema exists (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks crucial context about behavior, parameters, and usage that would help an agent invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no information about what 'old_site_url', 'new_site_url', or 'move_type' mean, their formats, or constraints. With 3 parameters (2 required) completely undocumented, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Submit a site move/migration notification' clearly states the action (submit) and resource (site move/migration notification), but it's somewhat vague about what this actually does. It doesn't specify whether this triggers an actual migration, notifies a system, or requests approval. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_site_moves' (read vs write), it lacks the specificity of a 4-5 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or related tools like 'get_site_moves' for checking existing moves. Without any context about when this operation is appropriate, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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