register_site

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

With no positive annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the new site is created disabled, without a password, and that fingerprint/CA and publish enablement are local configuration concerns. However, it does not disclose duplicate handling, idempotency, or side effects beyond creation.

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 with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, followed by the key state and prerequisite information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has a complex nested config and no positive annotations. The description is too minimal: it omits duplicate behavior, idempotency, credential requirements, and how the local configuration should be performed. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema and guess at edge cases.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning for ca_file/ssh_fingerprint and publish_enabled via 'Fingerprint/CA e habilitação de envio', and 'sem senha' hints at credential handling. But it does not explain the required config fields like host, user, remote_root, and local_root, leaving significant parameter semantics undocumented.

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 uses the specific verb 'Cadastra' (registers) with a clear resource, 'domínio novo', and adds the initial state 'desativado e sem senha'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like deploy_site, backup_site, and test_connection.

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 use for registering a new domain and states a prerequisite: fingerprint/CA and send enablement must be configured locally. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or what happens if the domain already exists.

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