Create Content Site

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. It states 'Create a new content site' which implies a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the creation is reversible (e.g., via 'delete_content_site'), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It wastes no words and directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (a write operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits like side effects, error conditions, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. While the schema covers the single parameter well, the overall context for a creation tool is underspecified.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage with a clear 'name' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't elaborate on the 'name' parameter's semantics (e.g., uniqueness constraints, length limits, or formatting), but this isn't required given the schema's completeness.

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 resource ('content site in the current account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'clone_staging_site' or 'create_staging_site_page' by specifying it creates a content site rather than a staging site or its components. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_user' or 'register_user' in terms of resource type, which slightly limits specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., account context), exclusions (e.g., when not to create a site), or comparisons to siblings like 'create_staging_site' (if applicable) or 'update_content_site'. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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