provision_full_website

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully enumerate the side effects created (database, a user with full grants, AutoSSL trigger), which is real behavioral value. But it omits auth/session requirements, idempotency and behavior when the domain already exists, whether a partial failure leaves orphaned database users or directories, and whether AutoSSL is awaited.

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 with a colon-delimited list of the composite steps. Every clause earns its place by naming a concrete artifact the caller will end up with; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 high-impact multi-step mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is created but not the operational contract: no return-value description, no rollback/partial-failure semantics, no prerequisites. Adequate to select the tool, thin for invoking it safely.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including defaults for document_root and create_database. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema (e.g., how database_suffix interacts with the generated DB name, or what 'secure user with full grants' means in terms of naming). Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Provision') and resource ('complete website') and enumerates the concrete artifacts created: domain/docroot, MySQL database, secure user with full grants, index placeholder, and AutoSSL. The phrase 'in one step' implicitly distinguishes it from the granular sibling tools (create_mysql_database, create_mysql_user, set_mysql_privileges, trigger_autossl), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'in one step' and 'complete website' – an agent can infer this is for bootstrapping a brand-new site rather than doing granular management. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (DNS pointing, cPanel session, existing domain conflicts), and no statement about when to prefer the individual sibling tools instead.

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