Build/update the project website

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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries full burden. It discloses the side effect of re-rendering index.html and the partial update behavior, but does not address auth needs, error handling, or whether the project must exist.

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 efficient sentences front-load the purpose and then add side effect and constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Though the description covers the main fields and side effect, it lacks details on return values (no output schema), error cases, and the structure of nested objects (seo subfields are undocumented). Adequate for simple use but incomplete for complex scenarios.

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 only 17% (seo described). The description adds meaning for title, tagline, theme, and sections, but does not mention the 'project' (required) or 'seo' parameters. This partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 sets the splash site (title, tagline, theme, sections) and re-renders site/index.html. It distinguishes from siblings like get_site (read) and deploy_site (deployment) but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 mentions 'Only provided fields change,' implying partial updates, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scaffold_site, apply_site_template, or set_site_analytics.

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