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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false. The description adds meaningful side-effect boundaries beyond that: creation is inert until the site is built and does not trigger paid generation or publishing. It does not mention permissions or what the created world's default state is.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the continuation path. No filler or repetition.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers the key gap: the returned worldId and how to consume it, plus the crucial fact that creation alone publishes nothing. Only the parameter-level detail is thin.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only loosely names three fields ('title, URL, description') without format, length, or slug rules, and never mentions the required workspaceId. An agent must open the schema to learn that workspaceId/name/slug are required.

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 private hosted World') and scopes it as minimal. The field list ('title, URL and description') roughly maps to the name/slug/description params, though it omits workspaceId and uses different wording than the schema. It is distinguishable from generic create_* siblings but doesn't explicitly contrast with list_hosted_worlds or get_hosted_world.

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 concrete next-step routing: read the returned worldId via get_hosted_world, then build the site and save via save_hosted_world_site. It also states an explicit exclusion ('does not publish or start paid generation'), which is genuine when-not guidance. No alternative creation tool is named, but the workflow context is clear.

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