create_site_theme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('create') without detailing permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected output format. For a creation tool with 9 parameters, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 in Russian ('Создать тему для Site'), which is appropriately brief and front-loaded. However, it's overly terse for a tool with 9 parameters and no other documentation, bordering on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's scope, parameter usage, behavioral expectations, or how it differs from similar tools. This inadequacy could hinder an agent's ability to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about what parameters like 'theme_name', 'color_scheme', or 'webasyst_path' mean or how to use them. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving all 9 parameters semantically unclear.

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 'Создать тему для Site' (Create theme for Site) states the basic verb ('create') and resource ('theme for Site'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what kind of theme (e.g., visual design, layout) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_theme' or 'create_shop_theme', which could cause confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_theme' or 'create_shop_theme'. It lacks context about prerequisites, target scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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