create_subdomain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for revealing behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a new subdomain', which implies a mutation but gives no details about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens on success. This is insufficient for a creation tool with no other behavioral disclosure.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it lacks any structure or additional context, which is acceptable for a minimal one-liner but does not earn a 5.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description alone must provide context. The schema covers parameters, but the description does not mention what the subdomain is used for, whether it is a web subdomain, or any prerequisites. Given the tool's complexity and the many sibling tools, this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (domain, subdomain, document_root) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it is not misleading. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new subdomain'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_subdomains and delete_subdomain, though it does not explicitly differentiate from create_addon_domain or create_parked_domain. The name itself also helps.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where this tool is appropriate, or when to prefer other tools like create_addon_domain. The description simply states the action without context.

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