site_add

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

Annotations already signal this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that by disclosing the side effect that a directory name/public_html will be created in the filesystem, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two sentences are front-loaded with the core action and side effect, with zero waste. The Args block is slightly verbose for a single parameter but remains efficient overall.

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 single-parameter registration tool with an output schema (so return values needn't be explained) and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely complete. It discloses the filesystem side effect and the parameter constraint; only usage/alternatives guidance is missing.

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 the param burden. It documents the single 'name' parameter as the site name '(латиницей)' (in Latin characters), adding a meaningful constraint not present in the schema.

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 and resource ('Зарегистрировать сайт' / register a site), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like site_delete, site_list, and site_freeze. It is clear but does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as site_link_domain or domain_add, nor any stated prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the side-effect description.

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