Create Site

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

The annotations already declare the operation as mutating, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the created site and its siteId are returned, which is valuable since there is no output schema. It does not disclose edge behaviors such as duplicate-domain handling or validation, but for a simple create operation this is not a critical gap.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying the return value and its role in tracking integration.

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 simple three-parameter create operation with fully described schema properties, the description is largely sufficient. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by explicitly stating that the created site and siteId are returned. It does not address potential duplicates or validation, but nothing suggests those are essential for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 useful descriptions, including the domain format example and the pointer to rybbit_list_sites for finding organization IDs. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, this is an acceptable baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('a new site in Rybbit'), immediately identifying the action. It also differentiates this tool from the many sibling site tools by focusing on creation rather than get/update/delete/list operations. The brief reference to returning the siteId also helps position the tool's role.

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 gives a clear context for use: when a new site should be created. However, it provides no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives, even though sibling tools like rybbit_update_site_config and rybbit_delete_site exist. Usage is therefore implied rather than explicitly guided.

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