Add a website

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

Beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive), the description discloses that the operation adds a resource, returns an embed code, enforces plan limits by refusing, and triggers a crawl by default. This gives a clear picture of the side effects and failure conditions, exceeding what annotations alone provide.

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 compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by constraints and side effects. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy or filler.

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 create operation, the description covers the main result (embed code), the limit-based failure mode, and the default crawl behavior. It does not mention potential validation errors (e.g., invalid domain) or success response details, but given the absence of an output schema and the relative simplicity of the tool, this is reasonably complete. A minor gap prevents a 5.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (name, crawl, domain), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds only marginal context—such as the 'by default' behavior for crawl—but does not materially enhance per-parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Add a new website'), the resource ('website (a new AI agent)'), and the key return value ('embed code'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_website or list_websites, and the parenthetical clarifies the domain-specific meaning of 'website'.

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 useful constraints (plan limits and refusal behavior) and notes the default crawl side effect. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the action is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool versus get/list/update variants. Lacks a direct 'use this instead of X' hint, hence not a 5.

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