Refresh a free-subdomain Warpweb site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses idempotency ('safe to retry'), cost ('free'), and the precise effect (bumps timestamp and restores if paused). It also notes the behavioral difference for custom-domain sites, adding valuable context beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences cover the auto-pause context, the action taken, and the custom-domain exception without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence earns its place and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is comprehensive: it explains the underlying problem, the action, idempotency, cost, and when it is not needed. This gives an agent all the context required to decide whether to invoke the tool.

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% description coverage for the sole parameter `siteId` ('Site UUID to refresh'). The tool description adds no further parameter details, but none are needed given the schema's clarity, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 refreshes a free-subdomain Warpweb site, specifically bumping `last_refreshed_at = now()` and restoring the live bundle if paused. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the refresh action rather than creation, listing, or domain operations.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use: for free `*.warpweb.app` subdomain sites that auto-pause after 7 days of inactivity. It also states a clear exclusion: custom-domain sites stay live and do not need this call, with a note about their paid hosting.

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