Edit a Warpweb site with a natural-language prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description proactively discloses async behavior (immediate revisionId/queue_position), 30s–4min timing, serial queue with depth cap, clarification flow, webhook/polling options, and cost. This goes far beyond basic operation, giving the agent full expectations for how the tool behaves.

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 long but well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then walks through async behavior, queue, and cost in a logical sequence. Every sentence adds unique operational information, so the length is justified.

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's async nature, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers the workflow: immediate response, how to track progress (polling/webhooks), how to handle clarification, queue limits, and cost. This is complete for an agent to use it effectively.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (siteId and prompt) with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds context about using the prompt to include clarification answers, but otherwise doesn't enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Conversational edit of a deployed site' with natural-language prompts, and provides specific examples of surgical and structural edits. This distinguishes it from siblings like refresh_site or get_site by focusing on editing via prompt rather than direct actions.

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 implicitly conveys when to use it (whenever a user wants to change a deployed site with plain-English instructions), but doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions. The 'right size of edit is chosen automatically' suggests it's the go-to for edits, but no alternatives are referenced.

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