Instant website creation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that answers are auto-filled from description and preferences, the design gallery is opened for user selection, and then the standard pipeline continues. This is substantial behavioral context, though it does not mention side effects or prerequisites like existing projects.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by the distinguishing shortcut behavior, then the exact next steps. Every sentence provides necessary information with no filler.

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?

The description effectively covers the essential context: the shortcut nature, what data is used, the design gallery interaction, and the follow-up pipeline. It does not mention return values or error handling, but given that this is a flow tool and there is no output schema, the description is adequate.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful instruction that all content (business info, texts, links, images) should be passed in the 'description' parameter, which enhances understanding beyond the schema's generic 'Everything known about the site'.

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 tool creates a website via a shortcut flow, using available data and skipping the deep planning interview. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_project by explicitly describing its fast path and immediate design gallery opening.

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?

It conveys when to use the tool: when there is available data and the user wants to skip the planning interview. It also explains the subsequent pipeline steps. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like start_project or list when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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