setup_site

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it explains the stop-on-first-blocker behavior and the returned nextAction payload, which the agent needs to resume the deploy cycle.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the loop scope, the second explains the stopping behavior, return value, and re-invocation rule. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 complex multi-step orchestrator with no output schema and five parameters, the description covers the flow, the stop condition, and the response shape (nextAction). It is largely complete, missing only explicit guidance on when to prefer the individual step 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 description coverage is 80%, with site, method, dnsProvider, and maxWaitSeconds all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does nearly all the work.

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?

States a specific orchestration purpose (the whole auth -> verification -> add -> sitemap -> inspection loop) with the verb 'runs', and the multi-step scope visibly distinguishes it from the single-step siblings like verify_site and submit_sitemap. An agent can identify what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear invocation pattern ('Call again after each deploy') and clarifies the loop halts at the first action-needed step, which tells the agent how to interact with it. It does not explicitly contrast against using the individual sibling tools or state when NOT to use this composite.

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