create_connected_site

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so write behavior is expected. The description adds transparency by detailing the creation process (generates a script that must be installed), post-creation verification, and the return value structure (id, domain, site_script, etc.). No behavioral contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, parameter list, and return description. Every sentence provides value; no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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), the description covers the full workflow: pre-check, creation, installation, and verification. It references sibling tools appropriately and explains the return object sufficiently.

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%, but the description explains 'foreign_id' and 'domain' with examples. However, the optional 'account' parameter is not described, leaving a gap. Partial compensation for low schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: connecting a website to Mailchimp and generating a tracking script. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_audience' or 'create_campaign' by specifying its focus on site tracking and pop-up forms.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (enable site tracking/pop-up forms) and recommends checking existing sites with 'list_connected_sites' first, followed by verification with 'verify_connected_site_script'. It lacks explicit exclusions but offers clear context for correct usage.

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