Build the planned site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the multi-step pipeline, the asynchronous wait for import to finish, and the cost of 4 credits. It does not mention failure modes, overwrite semantics, or reversibility, but the disclosed workflow is substantial and helpful.

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 three tight sentences with no filler: the main action is front-loaded, cost is stated up front, and parameter guidance is last. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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, asynchronous, cost-incurring tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what gets built, how the plan is chosen, the blocking wait, and the credit cost. It omits return-value details and failure handling, but these are moderately covered by the wait wording and sibling status tools.

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 schema already documents both parameters fully. The description reiterates the pass-or-omit behavior of `plan` but adds no genuinely new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, keeping this at the baseline.

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 specifies a concrete action chain: assemble the plan into pages, generate copy from the brief, select stock photos, import into the site, and wait for completion. This clearly identifies the tool's resource (a plan) and its outcome, distinguishing it from planning, review, and import-demo siblings without needing to name them.

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 provides clear usage context: build either an edited plan passed explicitly or the stored plan when omitted. It communicates when the tool enters the workflow (after planning) and how to control which plan is built, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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