create_connected_site

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

Annotations provide minimal info (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral context: authentication via API key, concurrency limits (max 10 concurrent requests), and that it respects read-only and dry-run modes. It also explains the return structure. However, it does not explicitly state the potential for duplicate sites if called again (given non-idempotency).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, authentication/limits, parameter details, and return format. No redundant or vague statements.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidance, auth/limits, parameter semantics, and return value structure. It references sibling tools (list_connected_sites, verify_connected_site_script) for context. The agent has complete information to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It explains each parameter beyond the schema: foreign_id as a unique identifier, domain as the website domain, and account as optional with environment variable naming convention. This adds essential meaning for correct usage.

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 verb 'connect' and the resource 'website to Mailchimp' and specifies that it generates a tracking script. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning site tracking and pop-up forms, which are specific to this tool.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('enable site tracking and pop-up forms on a domain you control') and provides step-by-step post-creation instructions ('install the returned script, then call verify_connected_site_script'). It also advises checking existing sites first with list_connected_sites, showing awareness of alternatives.

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