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

Annotations establish it as a non-read-only, non-destructive creation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the site opens in Studio and must reach editorReady with a matching siteId before editing. This sequencing requirement is valuable and not derivable from annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then tight guidance on parameters and the required polling step. Every sentence 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?

No output schema exists, and the description carries the workflow through to readiness (editorReady + siteId match), so an agent knows how to proceed after creation. It does not explicitly address how this differs from opening an existing site, a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by disclosing the default name ("My Website") and clarifying that a provided template is imported "unchanged," neither of which appears in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Create a site and open it in Studio." This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like swebsy_open_site and swebsy_rename_site, and the description of what happens on creation (open in Studio) is concrete.

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 conditions: omit templateId for a blank site, provide an installed template ID (from swebsy_list_templates) to import a template unchanged. It also prescribes the follow-up workflow (poll swebsy_status until editorReady and siteId matches). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with swebsy_open_site for opening an existing site.

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