web_subdomain_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'create' indicates a write operation, but the description does not reveal side effects (e.g., modifying web server configuration, adding DNS records), requirements like the parent domain needing to exist, or any error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified to the point of being terse, providing only the minimum possible identifier of the operation. This is efficiency without substance, so it earns a middle score rather than a high one.

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?

Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, a free-form 'params' object, and many sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how subdomains interact with web domains, what parameters are needed, or how to validate success. An agent would not be able to reliably invoke this tool with correct input.

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?

Although the schema has a description for each parameter, the 'params' field is a free-form object with 'additionalProperties: {}' and only the generic description 'Subdomain params'. The tool description 'Create a subdomain' adds no specific meaning about what keys or values the 'params' object should contain. With such an open schema, the description should compensate by listing expected fields, and it does not.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Create a subdomain'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like web_domain_add and web_aliasdomain_add by specifically targeting subdomains, and from web_subdomain_delete by using 'create' instead of 'delete'. However, it omits any detail on what a subdomain entails in this context, so it is clear but not richly explanatory.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply says 'Create a subdomain' with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or links to related tools such as web_domain_add for parent domain creation. An agent must infer the appropriate context entirely from the name and description.

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