Change the owner list

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation REPLACES rather than adds, that an empty list is rejected to prevent accidental wipe, and that the tool requires a two-step confirmation flow. It also explains that existing owners not included in the new list lose access. This fully covers the destructive and non-obvious behaviors.

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 front-loaded with the core replace semantics, then gives the necessary safety warning, the prerequisite call, and the two-step flow. Every sentence contributes essential guidance; there is no filler or redundancy beyond intentional emphasis.

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 destructive nature and two-step behavior, the description is complete: it explains the replace behavior, how to avoid removing existing owners, the empty-list safety mechanism, and the token flow. Annotations and output schema cover the remaining metadata, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds valuable practical semantics: how to construct the owners list by calling get_verified_site first, and how the confirm_token flow works by first calling without it. This clarifies real usage beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 opens with a precise verb and object: 'Replaces the list of verified owners of a site.' It clearly explains what the tool does and distinguishes it from related verification tools by describing the owner-list replacement concept rather than simple verification or unverification.

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 gives strong usage context: it is 'how a second person or a service account is granted ownership' and explicitly instructs callers to get_verified_site first and pass back existing addresses. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the practical guidance is clear.

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