Import website from archive

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial detail: 'Website contents are overwritten by the archive contents' and the required pre-upload step. This goes beyond the annotation by specifying the exact destructive scope and operational prerequisite. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a clear prerequisite, effect, and supported formats. No fluff or redundant content; every sentence 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 destructive import with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential requirements: the upload prerequisite, the overwrite behavior, and supported archive types. It lacks explicit error handling or return value info, but these are not mandated given the absence of an output schema. The description is nearly complete, though the directory inconsistency slightly reduces completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that archive_name must already be uploaded (and referencing the .h5g/ directory) and that website_uid is the Agency Plan identifier, reinforcing the schema text. The slight inconsistency between 'root directory' and '.h5g/' is minor but doesn't detract significantly.

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 action ('Imports'), the target resource ('Agency Plan website'), and the source ('already-uploaded archive'). It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying Agency Plan scope and the archive-based import method, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Upload the archive to the website's root directory via file browser first') and explains the effect ('Website contents are overwritten'). While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternative import tools, the Agency Plan qualifier and archive requirement effectively guide usage, and supported archive types are listed. Missing explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is sufficient.

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