agency-hosting_provisionANewAgencyPlanWebsiteV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone informs about behavior. It discloses that provisioning runs in the background and returns a setup UUID, which is key. It does not mention potential failures or side effects (e.g., billing), but the async nature is well-communicated.

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 introductory statement, parameter overview, and a 'Common setups' section. It is not overly long, though some repetition exists (e.g., explaining domain omission). Overall, it is concise and front-loaded.

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), the description is fairly complete. It covers the main use cases and explains key parameters. It could mention that an order_id must correspond to an Agency Plan order, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use 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?

While the input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions, the tool's description adds significant extra context, such as explaining the 'flavor' parameter with examples ('php-fpm' vs 'wp-7.0'), the 'domain' omission behavior, and the interaction between 'type' and 'flavor' for static sites. This goes beyond the schema's basic type descriptions.

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: 'Provisions a new website on one of your Agency Plan hosting orders.' It uses a specific verb ('provisions') and resource ('website on Agency Plan hosting order'), and its differentiation from sibling tools (e.g., delete, change domain) is obvious.

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 scenarios for three common setups (plain PHP, WordPress, static/Node.js), helping users select parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention prerequisites (like having an existing order), which would improve guidance.

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