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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the external_url branch (embedding, page-level comments, no build), but this largely duplicates the external_url schema text and it says nothing about permissions, return value, or what happens to the created site.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the branching logic; every sentence contributes. It is slightly dense with parentheticals, but there is no filler.

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 4-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key create-vs-link decision well but omits the creation result and any permission/auth expectations, leaving a real gap given the absence of annotations and an output schema.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents name, framework, and external_url behavior. The description restates the framework enum/default and external_url semantics rather than adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource ('Create a new website') and immediately resolves the ambiguity by naming the two modes: a deploy target vs. a linked external site. It also names the sibling deploy_website, so an agent can distinguish this tool from the other website/creation tools 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 clear routing: 'then call deploy_website to push source' for deploy targets, and 'pass external_url to link an EXISTING live site... no deploy' for the other branch. The condition selecting each path is explicit, though it frames deploy_website as a follow-up rather than stating a when-not condition.

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