build_website

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that deployment happens automatically and that the AI handles design and technology choices unprompted, but says nothing about deployment target, hosting, permissions or credentials required, cost, reversibility, or latency beyond 'instantly'.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the interaction protocol. It is a bit instruction-heavy with the enumerated questions, but every sentence carries operational value and nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should say more about what comes back (a URL? a preview? hosting details?) and what the agent should do with the result. The input-side workflow is well covered, but the post-call picture 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 100%, so both parameters (businessName, description) are already documented. The description reinforces that these are the only two inputs and that they should be elicited from the user, but adds no format, length, or constraint details beyond the schema. 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource with scope modifiers: 'Build and deploy a complete website instantly.' An agent immediately knows this produces a finished, deployed site rather than scaffolding or advice. No siblings exist, so no differentiation is needed.

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?

It states the trigger condition ('When user wants a website') and prescribes the exact interaction protocol: ask only two questions, then call the tool immediately. It also explicitly rules out asking about colors, style, framework, or technology, which is genuine when-not guidance.

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