thincms_go_live

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

Describes what happens internally (provisions Nginx config + SSL certificate) and the state transition. With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it covers the main behavior but doesn't mention reversibility, potential downtime, or permission requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant information. Each sentence adds value: first states the core action, second provides prerequisite and technical detail. Excellent structuring.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: purpose, prerequisite, and side effects. No gaps.

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?

Only one parameter (siteId) with schema description; the tool description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the prerequisite and the effects (SSL provisioning), enriching the parameter's meaning.

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?

Clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Take a site live' with specific actions (provision SSL, transition from preview to live). Distinguishes from sibling tools which are about content management, not site status changes.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite: 'Requires the production domain's DNS to be pointed to the server first.' This guides correct usage. Could be improved by noting when not to use (e.g., if site is already live) but adequate.

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