infomaniak_create_site

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds important behavioral context: the two-phase commit, the requirement for a confirmation token, and that creation only happens on the second call. This goes beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 two concise sentences. The first clearly states the action, and the second explains the necessary two-phase flow, with no redundant wording.

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 description captures the essential two-phase workflow and is supported by an output schema and annotations. However, it omits prerequisites and alternative tool references, so it is slightly above minimum viability but not fully comprehensive.

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%, and the description only mentions confirmation_token, without explaining hosting_id, fqdn, directory, or environment. It fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, providing almost no semantic value for most parameters.

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 creates a new site on Infomaniak web hosting, with a specific two-phase commit. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like infomaniak_provision_site_full, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 usage guidance by explaining the two-phase commit: first call returns a plan with confirmation_token, second call with same params + token creates the site. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions.

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