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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so richly. It explains that the tool requires a user-mode preference question, returns the exact artifact fields, mandates following build_instructions, applies the same website-count limit as the parent flow, and explicitly supports client-side apps—so the agent knows not to decline them for 'needs a backend'. Given no annotations, this is strong, specific behavioral detail.

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 longer than average, but most sentences add needed operational context: the user prompt requirement, mode consequences, return contract, plan eligibility, and app support. Some phrasing is slightly redundant, such as repeating that both modes share validation contracts, but no sentence is wasted.

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 two-parameter optional tool, the description is quite complete: it names the return values, the required follow-up action, plan eligibility, and the app-deliverable scope. The one notable gap is the unexplained title parameter, and an output schema is present but not described, so the description does not fully cover return formatting details.

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 must compensate. It provides deep semantics for design_mode by explaining creative vs structured, but it never explains the optional title parameter, its default of null, or observable effects of omitting it. That gap makes the coverage good for one parameter but incomplete overall.

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 new hosted website project'. It also declares itself the 'DEFAULT way' to handle website-build requests and distinguishes itself from pure artifact/channel HTML by emphasizing a real, deployable site the user can preview, edit, and publish.

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 clearly tells the agent when to use it: as the default for build/make/design website requests while the connector is present. It also gives a concrete before-calling step: ask the user for 'creative' vs 'structured' unless already stated. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives to avoid, but it names create_new_site for the follow-up rather than competing selection guidance.

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