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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Inputs are bounded and processed transiently; nothing is stored.' This supports the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations and clarifies that the creation is side-effect-free. It does not describe output retrieval, but the core behavioral promise is clearly disclosed.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, the deliverable, the precondition, and the side-effect guarantee in one tight statement.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, this description leaves major gaps: what the ZIP contains, how each input shapes the result, what the tool returns, and how it relates to describe_starter and get_starter. The annotations cover side-effect safety, but the operational guidance is incomplete.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 11% and 9 parameters, the description needed to compensate by explaining parameter roles, but it only uses the generic word 'customized.' It provides no meaning for projectName, purpose, aiTool, computer, language, dynamicNeeds, existingRepo, existingSite, or publicLanguages.

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 specific verb ('Create'), a concrete resource ('customized instruction-only Website Starter ZIP'), and a clear precondition ('after the start_website interview'). It distinguishes itself from start_website by the phase it belongs to, though it does not explicitly contrast with describe_starter or get_starter.

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 phrase 'after the start_website interview' gives an explicit temporal precondition, which implies when the tool should be called. However, it provides no guidance about when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools describe_starter or get_starter, and no exclusions or alternative routing.

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