Save bounded cross-plugin responses privately

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral context beyond these hints: it states that no record body is echoed, that overwrites are not allowed, that there is no upload or all-pages guarantee, and that failures remove only the newly created file and return indices without native records. This goes meaningfully beyond the annotations, though it does not detail rate limits or authentication 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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action and follows with critical constraints. It is appropriately sized, though the compact phrasing may require careful parsing. Every clause carries information, but the structure is somewhat terse.

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?

The tool is complex: it orchestrates up to 20 native calls, writes a file, and has destructive aspects. The description covers key behaviors such as failure handling, file exclusivity, and lack of guarantees, which is substantial. However, given no output schema exists, it could provide more detail about the return format (e.g., what indices are returned upon failure) or confirm requirements, leaving a small gap.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters, including the tasks array with its constraints and the account, confirm, and output_file fields. The description mentions 'prevalidated native reads' and 'exclusive new0600 JSON file', which loosely relate to the tasks and output_file parameters but do not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific composite action: it performs 1–20 prevalidated native reads and writes the responses to an exclusive private JSON file. It is differentiated from sibling tools like preview_site_batch and submit_site_batch by stating that it delivers only to an exclusive new0600 JSON file and that failures remove only this helper's newly created file. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to those siblings, so it doesn't reach the level of a 5.

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 implies usage for confirmed, prevalidated native reads and mentions constraints such as no overwrites and no all-pages guarantee. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like read_site_snapshot or preview_site_batch, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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