finalize_website_edit_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names actions but fails to mention side effects (e.g., git commit, preview deployment creation), reversibility, required permissions, or failure modes. The term 'report' is also vague.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with action verbs. It is appropriately concise, though the extreme terseness limits its informational value.

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 multi-step mutating operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% param coverage, an 8-word description is grossly inadequate. It lacks details on validation scope, commit behavior, preview handling, and report contents.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at createPreview via 'optionally preview'; taskId and commitMessage are completely unexplained. This is minimal compensation for a 3-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb list ('Validate, commit, optionally preview, and report') and identifies the resource ('a website edit task'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling finalize tools by the resource type. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other finalization, validation, commit, or preview tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context indicating the appropriate point in the workflow.

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