bitpull_new_site

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

Beyond the single destructiveHint=false annotation, the description discloses real side effects: it creates files under ~/BitPull Sites and authorizes the folder, and it returns the project plus a 'first request for the coding agent.' That composite behavior is non-obvious and valuable. It stops short of stating auth requirements, overwrite behavior on name collisions, or what the returned request contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and location, with no filler. The trailing clause 'and return it with a first request for the coding agent' is slightly compressed/ambiguous but still earns its place by conveying the return behavior.

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 3-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core side effects and roughly what comes back, which is adequate. However, with zero schema description coverage, it leaves the name/description parameters and the authorization consequences underspecified, so gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does not. It only implicitly maps 'template' to the enum values ('a small Vite site, or React'), while 'name' (project name? folder name? uniqueness constraints?) and the 4000-char 'description' parameter are never explained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a new website project') plus the destination location (~/BitPull Sites) and the two template flavors, so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not name a sibling or explicitly contrast itself with bitpull_authorize_folder or bitpull_site_info, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'new website project' — an agent can infer this is the starting point before publishing or authorizing separately. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no redirection to alternatives such as bitpull_authorize_folder, even though this tool apparently performs authorization itself.

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