Import WordPress website

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explicitly warning that this overwrites the website's existing contents and cannot be undone, and advises verification before calling. This precisely discloses the destructive impact and irreversibility, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 concise and front-loaded with the critical warning. It consists of two short paragraphs with no filler. A slight redundancy exists between the title and the opening sentence, but overall it is well-structured and efficiently written.

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 description covers the core action, prerequisites (uploaded files), and destructive nature. However, it does not explain the relationship to the similarly named sibling hosting_importWordpressWebsite, nor does it describe expected outcomes or return values (no output schema). For an import operation, this is adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for all four parameters, with descriptions for domain, sql_path, username, and archive_path. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that files are archive and database files already uploaded to the directory. The username parameter remains vague ('username parameter') and is not clarified.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Import WordPress website to the specified domain.' It further specifies that it imports from archive and database files, which adds precision. However, it does not differentiate between this tool and the sibling hosting_importWordpressWebsite (without V1), which appears to be an analogous endpoint.

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 by stating that files must have been uploaded to the website's directory, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like hosting_importWordpressWebsite or agency-hosting_importWebsiteFromArchiveV1. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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