Edit Website

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

The description fully discloses the asynchronous nature, returning a workflow_id immediately and requiring polling for completion. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by specifying the exact behavioral pattern. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core action ('Edit an existing website using AI') before explaining the async workflow. Every word is necessary and concise, with no wasted text.

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 has 4 well-documented parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers the return value by pointing to 'check_edit_status' for results. The async workflow is fully explained, making the tool complete for its 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the description does not need to add extra meaning. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides. Score at baseline as per guidelines.

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 it edits an existing website using AI, emphasizing the asynchronous workflow across pages. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_website and update_website_settings, which likely involve simpler or non-AI updates. The verb 'edit' combined with 'across its pages' and 'using AI' provides specific purpose and scope.

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 explains that the tool starts an asynchronous workflow and instructs the user to poll 'check_edit_status' for results, which provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like update_website or when not to use it, missing some comparative guidance.

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