agency-hosting_createANewWebsiteV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that 'Provisioning runs in the background, so the response returns immediately with a setup UUID' and that the website becomes reachable after provisioning completes. This async behavior is critical for the agent to set expectations. It also mentions auto-generation of a free subdomain when no domain is supplied. It does not delve into permission requirements or rate limits, but these are less essential for a creation endpoint.

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 and concise, front-loading the core purpose and then using bullet points for common setups. It avoids redundant phrasing and each sentence earns its place. The format improves scannability for an AI agent, making it efficient to parse and extract relevant patterns. No wasted words.

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 (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and high schema coverage, the description covers all essential aspects for typical usage: provisioning, domain handling, WordPress setup, and async behavior. However, it omits explanation of the 'clone' and 'derive_domain' parameters which are present in the schema. While these may be edge cases, their absence slightly reduces completeness for agents that might need those features. Nevertheless, the provided setup examples handle the majority of use 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?

The schema already documents each parameter with 100% coverage, which sets a baseline of 3. However, the description adds significant meaning by explaining how to combine parameters for different use cases: e.g., for WordPress it states 'flavor' should be a version like 'wp-7.0' and requires the 'wordpress' block; for static sites it says set 'type' to 'node-static'. It also explains the optionality of 'domain' and that omitting it yields a free subdomain. These insights go beyond the schema's field-level descriptions, effectively compensating for the coverage and adding real value.

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 'Provisions a new website on one of your Agency Plan hosting orders' with a specific verb (provisions) and resource (website on Agency Plan hosting). It further distinguishes itself by explaining typical setups (Plain PHP, WordPress, Static/Node.js), which helps differentiate from other hosting creation tools like 'hosting_createWebsiteV1' or 'horizons_createWebsiteV1'. The word 'Agency Plan' scopes it uniquely among siblings.

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 this tool by outlining common setups (Plain PHP, WordPress, Static/Node.js) with parameter configurations. While it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or list alternative tools, the examples give clear context for typical use cases, making it easy for an agent to decide. The 'Common setups' bullet list effectively communicates usage patterns.

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