rybbit_create_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The word 'create' indicates a mutation, but there is no information about side effects (e.g., whether the site goes live immediately, default settings applied), permissions required, or what happens on duplicate domain. No behavioral traits beyond the basic action are disclosed.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It follows a clear subject-verb-object structure and is appropriately sized for the tool's function. It wastes no tokens and delivers the core meaning efficiently.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and no output schema. With such complexity, the description should provide additional context about what happens on creation, required inputs, or prerequisites. It only states the basic action, leaving significant gaps. Since there is no output schema, the description also does not clarify what the response will contain.

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 the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely states the overall purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (create), the resource (site), and the context (in an organization). It differentiates from siblings like rybbit_get_site, rybbit_update_site, and rybbit_delete_site by specifying the creation verb, and from other create tools (goal, funnel, team) by naming the resource. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose statement.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need to create a new site within an organization. The verb and resource make the context clear. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the distinct resource and action provide adequate context without needing exclusions. This is above baseline clarity.

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